Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall

Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. --19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Following the passage of proposals 16 and 16c, we have consensus for a community-based recall of administrators. This subpage is for Phase II, so we can refine the implementation details.

Which of these conditions should be sufficient to compel an administrator to run an RRfA? Support more than one option if needed

Note - A rolling petition = A petition where anyone can sign, and RRFA can be triggered if there's votes in the last N days. Older signatures are handled as per #Expired signatures on initiation petitions. A non-rolling petition would be started, and then run for N days, after which it will be closed in favour of RRFA/no RRFA.

Note - The word "request" was replaced with petition for consistency with rest of the page. Rolling vs non rolling petitions was clarified further.

Survey (Initiation procedure)[edit]

Discussion (Initiation procedure)[edit]

Should RRFA petition signatures "roll"? For example, in a rolling petition with a length of one month, each signature expires when it is a month old; in a non-rolling petition, the petition itself expires a month after it is opened. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (rolling)[edit]

Discussion (rolling)[edit]

What percentages of support are necessary for an administrator to pass a reconfirmation RfA?

Note - Option A stated 66.6% for a couple hours. It was altered to 65% per discussion section below.

Survey (reconfirmation threshold)[edit]

Discussion (reconfirmation threshold)[edit]

Note - "RRFA request" was edited to "recall petition" to easier clarify the petition versus the actual RRFA.

Survey (Eligibility to RRFA)[edit]

Discussion (Eligibility to RRFA)[edit]

We could even say something like "Bureaucrats can disallow any RRFA that is found to be repetitive or tendentious via a crat chat. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my thinking on this (and to open myself up to rebuttal, in case people disagree): I do not like C+, because it confers an unnecessarily long period of immunity on an administrator, with no process or discussion (other than a list of signatures, which must be a short list or else the petition would have succeeded). C is a necessary evil to prohibit back-door rolling petitions, but the only other process I can think of with this kind of rerun immunity is WP:PROD, which has numerous important differences that should be obvious to anyone familiar with it (but just in case: articles are not editors, PROD is subordinate to AfD which has no such limitation, CSD is also available for simple cases, etc.). I also feel strongly that, if an admin has multiple recall petitions within a year, and it is not the result of harassment from the people filing the petitions, that fact alone is seriously concerning, and sweeping it under the rug with a blanket prohibition is not going to fix anything. It's merely going to redirect the discussion to other forums like ANI, most of which are less capable of dealing with this sort of discontent (RFAR can deal with it, but eugh, nobody wants to go to RFAR with three paragraphs of "User:Example keeps using their tools slightly wrong and reacting badly to criticism, and we tried talking to them but..."). --N Y Kevin 02:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "RRFA request" was edited to "recall petition" to easier clarify the petition versus the actual RRFA.

Survey (Recall Petition Suffrage)[edit]

Discussion (Recall Petition Suffrage)[edit]

Under what circumstance can a vote on a recall petition be stricken or removed? Support more than one option if needed.

Note - This section was titled 'Removing signatures' for a couple hours. It was altered to 'Striking/Removing signatures' (and the question adjusted) per discussion below. "RRFA request" was edited to "recall petition" to easier clarify the petition versus the actual RRFA.

Survey (Striking/Removing signatures)[edit]

Discussion (Striking/Removing signatures)[edit]

Note - "RRFA request" was edited to "recall petition" to easier clarify the petition versus the actual RRFA.

Survey (Desysop after Recall petition)[edit]

Discussion (Desysop after Recall petition)[edit]

There should be a rule stated here that the clock pauses while the admin being recalled is under scrutiny in an active case or case request at arbcom. Arbcom should be allowed to go first to give the community the maximum amount of information. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Option D. Option C seems ripe for abuse by a well-organized minority. Chetsford (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing multiple editors agree with Teratix's suggestion, it should probably be added as an option explicitly to help gauge the consensus. My suggested wording was something like *Option E: (In addition to another option) RRFAs should be started as soon as possible after a successful recall petition. I still think it should include some explicit leeway for editors who are around but cannot go through RRFA right away. But someone who supports the Option is better off phrasing it as they best can Soni (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should votes in a Recall petition be limited to signatures? Can they have discussion?

Note - "RRFA request" was edited to "recall petition" to easier clarify the petition versus the actual RRFA.

Survey (Recall petition discussion)[edit]

Discussion (Recall petition discussion)[edit]

Long reply Levivich (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: TLDR: we give up the opportunity to resolve things at the petition stage if we don't have discussion during the petition phase. Thanks for sharing your reasoning, which I understand I think it's a perfectly reasonable view, or a perfectly reasonable prediction of how the process might unfold and the risks we might face. Let me expand on my reasoning, which boils down to having a different prediction of how things might go and focusing on different risks (and rewards). First, I think it would very strange, and unfair to the admin, if a recall petition were initiated without an explanation as to why. It would also be unfair if that explanation were just a series of generalizations or characterizations, so I think the explanation needs to come with diffs. So I think a recall petition should come with something that could fairly be called an indictment: an explanation of why the admin is unsuitable, with diffs. This doesn't mean proof that the admin abused tools, but if it's something like "bad temperament" or "bad judgment," there'd be examples (in the form of diffs/links/quotes/etc.). Second, in order to evaluate the recall petition, editors should be able to discuss the indictment, and the admin generally. This includes expanding on the diffs in the indictment, or rebutting it. (One thing that hasn't been raised (yet) is whether the admin can respond during the recall petition, and if so, where and how.) Third, I don't think there are going to be very many RRFAs, although I think there will be a fair amount of recall petitions (like a bunch in the first year and then a few every subsequent year). But I don't think these petitions will result in many RRFAs because I think one of two things will happen during the petition process: (1) the admin reads the writing on the wall (the complaints are widely shared), resigns and does not run for RRFA, or (2) editors read the writing on the wall (the complaints are not widely shared) and the petition will fail. (This is assuming people can discuss during the petition phase.) RRFAs will happen, also in two general circumstances: (a) the admin is, what's the word I'm looking for... unobservant enough to not read the writing on the wall and will run a doomed RRFA out of, um, what's the word, misguided persistence. Or (b) the true edge cases, where there is just enough support to get over the petition but it's unclear that there it's really consensus. Like a 50/50 scenario. Or for the RFA analogy, a crat chat zone scenario. I think both of these will be rare; there aren't that many people who are unobservant and persistent enough for the doomed RRFAs, and edge cases are inherently rare. Fourth -- and this is the most important -- I think the above-described process (a recall petition with discussion) will lend itself to the possibility of both airing grievances, and working through grievances, at the petition stage. Right now we have no process for just saying, "hey I think you're not a good admin and should hang it up." We can say that on an admin's user talk page, but let's be real, that would be viewed as harassment and likely met with a bunch of the admin's friends (talk page watchers), so nobody is gonna do that. We can complain about an admin at ANI or to Arbcom for "cause," which means tool abuse, but not for "poor behavior that doesn't explicitly violate any policies." The recall petition provides that formal process. That doesn't mean that every recall will end in a hanging or an acquittal. It's quite possible that the airing of grievances, and discussing them, will lead to their resolution. One resolution is the admin agrees they're not suitable, or at least comes to believe a lot of people think they're not suitable, and resigns. Another resolution is that the grievances are rebutted, and the petition fails. A third resolution is that the admin takes the feedback on board and promises to do better, and people either don't sign or withdraw their signature from the petition after discussion. If any of these things happen, and it avoids an RRFA, we will have saved a TON of time, and also saved a TON of heartache (that comes with any RFA). Even though there would be some heartache in the petition phase, at least it wouldn't be extended to an RRFA. Conversely, if petitions were just signatures, we'd delay all the discussion, and all the potential benefits, to the RRFA. There would still be heartache (at least for the admin) during the petition phase, maybe more heartache if they aren't told exactly what the problem is, and nobody is allowed to rebut anything. And then there would be more heartache in an RRFA. And this might be unnecessary heartache if it could have been avoided by a rebutted petition indictment, or a resignation, or discussion that leads to some kind of accord. So I don't like options A, B, or C, because they forfeit the opportunity to resolve things at the petition phase through discussion, and make it more likely that an RRFA will commence, and more likely that an unnecessary or doomed RRFA will commence. I don't like D much just because I don't think moving things to the talk page matters or is necessarily helpful, although I'm rather neutral on that option (I mean, it still would allow for discussion). But I'm not convinced that moving discussion to the talk page helps anything in any context. So I think E is the place to start: just let it be like any other RFC, AFD, or RFA -- let people discuss unfettered, see how it goes. If the discussion turns out to be more disruptive than constructive, we could revisit in the future. But I'd start with discussion. Sorry this was so long, thanks for reading :=) Levivich (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Reconfirmation by admin elections)[edit]

Discussion (Reconfirmation by admin elections)[edit]

What would the threshold be? Obviously it can't be whatever we agree on above, since there's no room for bureaucrat discretion in a pure vote. If it's just the same 70% cutoff at WP:AELECT, then there's no need to shoehorn this into the reconfirmation process: the admin should just resign and run at the next election. (In practice this will never happen as long as the reconfirmation threshold is lower.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of consensus from phase one was that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) was for a "Re-request for adminship" procedure that could be initiated by the community. Thus I think the re-request procedure itself should be the same, whether it is done on the administrator's own initiative, or as a result of a petition from the community. This includes the criteria for determining if the re-request has succeeded. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What percentages of support are necessary for an administrator to pass a reconfirmation admin election?

Survey (reconfirmation threshold for admin elections)[edit]

Discussion (reconfirmation threshold for admin elections)[edit]

When a petition is created at the Wikipedia:Admin Reconfirmation page, what notifications should be made (beside the admin's talk page)? Choose all that apply.

Survey (notifications for petitions)[edit]

Discussion (notifications for petitions)[edit]

If other notifications are precluded with option A, it seems unduly restrictive. If no one knows about a petition, they won't be able to sign on. The decision would be made by a self-selected group of page watchers. It might be more effective to appoint a designated committee in that case. If other notifications are still permissible with option A, then there would be incentive for a "get out the vote" style campaign, which I feel would be unnecessarily divisive. isaacl (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question assumes that you have to notify the admin in question. Is that actually codified anywhere, or should we create it as its own question? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a rolling petition is used, what should be done with signatures that have "expired" because they are older than the longest rolling period (e.g. 1 year for Option A, 1 month for Options B and C, etc.)?

Survey (Expired signatures on initiation petitions)[edit]

Discussion (Expired signatures on initiation petitions)[edit]

In order to prevent harassment and other nonsense, we should restrict how often someone can participate in initiating one of these.

To be clear, this isn't a limitation on participating in the subsequent discussion, but merely being an "initiator" as laid out in the proposals above.

Survey (Initiator time limit)[edit]

Discussion (Initiator time limit)[edit]

I think I would prefer there be a minimum period between petitions for a given administrator. (Any serious concerns that arise during this period would have to be handled through an arbitration request.) If someone is starting petitions vexatiously, it can be handled through existing policies on collaborative behaviour. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming Extended Confirmed as Voter Requirement[edit]

The original proposal 16c clarified that voters in an RRfA request must be extended confirmed, which is now also a requirement for voting at RfA. However, 16c didn't necessarily get "broad consensus". We might need to add a section to this page to confirm that only extended confirmed editors' votes in an RRfA request count. Toadspike (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispense with the questions section for an RRfA[edit]

By the time we get to an RRfA, there's been extensive discussion about the issues at hand and the admin has already gone through a full RfA process. Let's get rid of the "questions" process and all the baggage that goes with it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RRfA petition after conclusion?[edit]

What happens to the page in the case of non-rolling petitions? Is it deleted, blanked, kept, or is the fate wholly up to the user in question? and does that vary based on whether it meets the threshold? The obvious argument for keeping is that it makes determining suffrage for petitions easier. The obvious argument against is that keeping a list of an admin's detractors is demotivating and easy to abuse. Copied from talk. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making the case for need[edit]

Editors who are formulating this proposal should give some serious thought to making the case for why such a proposal is needed. After each of the survey points above has been hashed out, there will need to be a community-wide RfC on whether or not to make the proposal a policy. (Arguing that there was a consensus in Phase 1 to create some sort of proposal will be insufficient.) Are there examples of ways in which the status quo is not meeting the community's needs, that the new proposal will address? How will you answer concerns that good admins will be mistreated by the proposed process? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How will this affect RfA candidacies?[edit]

Editors here seem to me to be a bit too confident that this proposed recall process will address the overall concern of RfA2024: that we should find more ways to get qualified editors to become administrators, and remove unnecessary obstacles. I know that one of the arguments that gets made for why a community-based recall process will make RfA easier (because I used to make this argument, myself) is that, if RfA !voters know that the community can recall an admin, then they will be less likely to oppose. But I don't know if that is true or not. On the other hand, I think an argument can be made that qualified candidates might decide that no one in their right mind would want to become an admin if that means being subject to the kind of recall process contemplated here, as soon as they make a tough call. Even if the process might eventually "acquit" them, they would still have to defend themselves. I think that could greatly reduce the number of new RfA candidates.

So – how would editors who support this proposal make the case for need in that regard? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the question of whether a recall procedure will decrease the number of admins, because fewer candidates will find it attractive to run an RfA, or increase the number, because RfA !voters will feel less reluctant to support, knowing there's a recall procedure, is something we will find out only after the proposal might be implemented, and we see what happens. The recall procedure will decrease the number of admins, because that's all it can do. The only question is whether the recall procedure causes a small, insignificant decrease, or a larger decrease. It's sure to raise the drama level several more notches; drama surrounding admins is not healthy for RfA. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that one of the arguments that gets made for why a community-based recall process will make RfA easier (because I used to make this argument, myself) is that, if RfA !voters know that the community can recall an admin, then they will be less likely to oppose. But I don't know if that is true or not – No one knows if it's really true or not until we try it. We have to try something[s], because the present system is not working well (in multiple ways). The bane of adminship reform for over a decade has been community "the sky is falling" fear-mongering about what some effect might be, based on precisely the same kind of reasonable but highly subjective guessing as those in favor of various changes. The only way to be certain is to actually try things, and keep and improve upon those that work and undo those that make things worse. PS: For what it's wroth, Tryptofish, if this RRFA stuff (in addition to the rest of the RfA overhaul, especially the diff requirement for accusations) gets set up properly, it actually gives me at least a faint incentive to run for RfA for the first time since I was a noob. (That said, I would have to think of something adminstrative I actually want to take on, and my to-do list is already over-long). PPS: It is not possible for RRFA to result in "adminship is no big deal" actually becoming true again (it can't because discretionary sanctions, now folded into WP:CTOP procedures, provide a "Judge Dredd" operating mode for any admin who wants it, whereby they can punitively issue blocks, topic-bans, and so on, based on their own individual personal judgment not any form of consensus, even among admins). But that doesn't means RRFA has no potential to make adminship less of a big deal. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 02:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency[edit]

I'm a little concerned about those working in areas where they inevitably make a lot of enemies. Very long complext discussion, so I apologize if I'm just not seeing this, but has someone proposed how frequently such a petition can be started? What I'm primarily concerned with is a petition failing, and someone opening a new one the next day/week/month. I kind of feel like once a year is sufficient? Valereee (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular but correct actions[edit]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that admins sometimes make "unpopular but correct actions" and that recall will affect this. Can someone explain this concept? Since policy is set by global consensus, it seems that any action that is in line with consensus, that is "correct," would also be popular. What is a hypothetical example of a correct (in line with consensus) but unpopular action? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section was open from 5 May to 8 May to help narrow down the scope of Phase 2. Soni (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is intended to help narrow us down in scope first. After a few days, we'll vote for specific proposals.

Tweaks to 16C[edit]

Per the close, 16C is a good starting point to this process. What changes to the current wording would be sufficiently good? Soni (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked page should probably be WP:Administrator reconfirmations, rather than Admin reconfirmation. I would change the discretionary range from 55–66 to 55–65%, and clarify whether a no consensus close means the tools are kept or removed (also maybe whether Support/Oppose should be retitled to Keep/Remove). Giraffer (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out that there's a difference between "unsuccessful" and "consensus against": plenty of RfAs fall under the discretionary threshold for a pass but certainly stay within "no consensus" territory. 60% support on a normal RfA is a "no consensus" autofail. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're following RfA logic, the idea would be to have to earn the tools, albeit with a lower threshold for success (therefore no consensus = no consensus to grant = remove). The alternative is to really treat this as a confirmation, and have the status quo be keeping the tools, with a no consensus outcome meaning there is insufficient support to remove the tools. Giraffer (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is the much safer option. If an admin is elected under controversial circumstances, a 5% flip in the electorate shouldn't be enough to take the tools away – that's probably less than random variation in any given RfA period. If the community wants to take someone's tools away, it should have a clear reason why and a clear consensus to endorse it. Otherwise, every AE admin gets a clip in the knees. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me wants to say that if we've selected a total idiot we probably deserve what we get; however, even those who have turned out to be manipulating the system for their own ends have not been entirely atrocious with the mop. While i understand S Marshall's concern, i think that any such that we make admins will find themselves before the Arbs before they'd be eligible for this RRfA process (which would surely be a depeniculation rather than a defenestration?). Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal does not remove any of the currently available methods to get rid of bad sysops. We sometimes have RfAs that pass with well over 50 opposers; without a "wait one year" these opposers could immediately start a recall election. If you want to add an "immediate" clause, I suggest to put the threshold for something like that not below 500. —Kusma (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think 500 is a bit extreme. I think RRfAs should focus on admin conduct/conduct since the candidate became an admin, so those hypothetical 50 opposers shouldn't be allowed to simply repeat their RfA oppose arguments to start an RRfA or even vote in an RRfA. But that's just my opinion and would have to be formally codified. Toadspike (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, policing the reasons why people are allowed to ask for a recall election is both difficult and unhelpful. The one year wait is a good solution: after a year, opposers will see whether their concerns are reflected in the admin's actual work. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're a total idiot, arbcom is already intended as a last resort (which would mean after RRfA has failed). Sincerely, Dilettante 17:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 We (meaning "the community without ArbCom intervention") currently can't defenestrate idiots within a year via a recall process. In other words, not allowing early RRFAs doesn't make anything worse.

Spitballing: what if we say something like "people who opposed an admin at an RfA/RRfA/RfB cannot sign a recall petition within a year"? House Blaster (talk · he/him) 19:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the original blanket prohibition on recall petitions in the first year because if someone saw a candidate they disliked seeming likely to succeed, but they lacked a rationale to sway the vote, they would have an incentive to vote neutral over oppose to retain the ability to initiate a petition as soon as a mistake or contentious decision is spotted. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big question that was raised during 16c's discussion stage was "What threshold can trigger an RRFA". I had used "25 editors in 1 month OR 50 editors in 1 year" as a yardstick from dewiki. What would be a reasonable number that doesn't also make RRFAs impossible to hit? Soni (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are good starting points for discussion. My only issue with the actual numbers advanced, is that they appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be drawn from the DE status quo. The DE equivalent of Extended Confirmed has only about 1/3 the number of editors as en.wiki. As a result, the numbers associated with the proposed implementation of this reform advances a far more easy-to-initiate process than currently exists at DE, removing an important guardrail against abuse. Since the supported proposal is to adopt a community recall “based on DE” it should not be significantly easier than the process DE uses. I suggest the thresholds to initiate a recall, therefore, be increased slightly to more closely reflect the proportional numbers required at DE (e.g. 35 and 75; though, even those numbers make this an easier threshold than exists at DE, proportionally). Chetsford (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On a different subject to my previous comment, I'd support eliminating the "Sword of Damocles" provision. The proposal has two petitioning periods, the latter of which (12 months) essentially allows any single editor to unilaterally dangle a Sword of Damocles over an Admin’s head for a year by simply opening a petition page. Aside from how absolutely miserable this sounds for Admins, the unintended consequence of this proposal is that we’ll likely find Admins soon issuing Indefinite blocks against editors with ever increasing frequency to avoid this from happening (not nefariously, of course, but I suspect we’ll see some Pavlovian conditioning occur). For this reason, I suggest we only allow for the 30-day petitioning period and eliminate the longer, 12-month petitioning period. Chetsford (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I agree with your assesment here, and I'd prefer we stick with the 30-day period only. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read German, but it seems that de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Intro has listed 50 users within six months since it was created in 2009. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You are right. During the discussions, I believe @ToBeFree had linked User:ToBeFree/recall as well. I believe I'd misread dewiki criteria while writing 16C, but that should not matter as much as the more relevant "What threshold do we want here?" Soni (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should start the 30 day countdown after the next logged action. As point 3 is currently written, an Admin who is on holiday for a few weeks might find themselves ousted without ever knowing they were being recalled in the first place. Some very minor wordsmithing could (a) require the Admin be notified they’re being recalled, (b) start the 30 day countdown from the point it’s confirmed the Admin is actually online. Chetsford (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the current wording is intended to cover this edge case, but perhaps it's too subtle. Point 3 is phrased as Otherwise a bureaucrat can remove their admin rights instead of "will remove", with the expectation that crats will use this discretion in cases like holidays. This would also cover some other edge cases we haven't considered yet.

I personally think more leeway on "When can crats remove bits" but none on "Do they need to RRFA?" is quite better and simpler than try to handle every edgecase from the initial get-go. Soni (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "enough editors that, if all of them had opposed during the RfA, it would have fallen below the discretionary range"? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I feel like that would be unfair to older admins who passed when we had significantly fewer editors, and they therefore passed with less supporters but the same rough level of consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unfair at all. It should be easier to recall older admins. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Should a good admin be able to be subjected to a stressful recall vote by a few butthurt editors simply because of their long tenure? The requirement should be uniform across all admins, since RFA totals are not representative of admin quality. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we already know that the community trusts more recently elected admins because of their RfAs. We know nothing about how much community trust ancient admins have in the present day, so it should be easier to ensure they continue to have the same level of trust as more recently-selected ones. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like if an RRFA petition could not hit the threshold, that would be a pretty good indicator that the community doesn't want them desysoped. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although we would have to decide what to do with old RfAs with no clear support/oppose numbers, people like BradPatrick who never RfAed at all, and cases like RexxS where crats passed below the discretionary range so technically zero or one people would be enough to meet my threshold. Probably all of these can be resolved by specifying a minimum number in addition. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes it unnecessarily complicated. Why should the numerical outcome of the RfA suddenly become important for all eternity?

Also, this is not very future proof in case RfA changes drastically. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly skipped over RFAs that were already trending towards 250-2 blowouts, even if I thought the candidate would make a wonderful admin. Because I was under the impression that my !vote would not make any difference whatsoever. I don't think we should retroactively change the meaning of sitting out an RFA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are a sampling of the consensus view at a given time and are dependent on context. I don't think it's a good idea to try to combine the outcomes of two distinct discussions that are separated by a significant period of time. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

96 recall votes required for me? Or would votes by previous supporters count twice when now asking for a recall? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any previous supporters would, in my hypothetical which is clearly not getting consensus, be removed from the support tally and added to the oppose tally. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like your proposal could be made more radical and then become an interesting concept that goes beyond the scope of the present discussion: what if we never close RfAs, but instead re-evaluate them once per month? People could continue to add supports and opposes, and whenever some threshold is crossed (in either direction), the community is alerted to this and a new consensus could form. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ideal type of system in my view: a rolling endorsement system. I press a button that says I endorse X for admin. At any time I can un-press that button. Endorsing would require meeting suffrage requirements and once an editor fails to meet suffrage requirements (like goes inactive), none of their endorsements count. When X gets over 250 (or whatever) endorsements, X gets the bit. Fall below 250 endorsements and X loses the bit. Automatically, no arbs or crats required. So in order to become or remain admins, editors have to be endorsed by some minimum number of editors who meet suffrage requirements. People can discuss and persuade others to endorse/unendorse if they want, people can still campaign for endorsements and answer questions if they want to, or people can just edit normally and one day wake up to find they're an admin (unless they opt out). The endorsements can be public or private depending on what the community wants (there are pros and cons to both). No 7 day public evaluation, nobody has to explain why they do or do not endorse, admin hopefuls just either have the votes or they don't, and you don't even need securepoll. This would require the WMF coding the endorsement system if we wanted it to be automatic, or private, but it could also be done by just signing/unsigning a subpage (crats would still be required). Levivich (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds horrible. We would have admins lose the bit just because some random editor who endorsed them happened to go inactive. That is not something we want. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most admins probably don't want to be in a permanent state of convincing people to continue their support. RFA is stressful enough, we do not need to make it permanent for every user on the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QuicoleJR that I don't think English Wikipedia is well served by having administrators evaluated publicly and thus concerned about having to attract new supporters. You've previously stated how no organization evaluates its staff in public for anyone to comment; a continuously ongoing voting system is also not something done for staff evaluation. isaacl (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a reasonable measure of how much attention an admin contreversey can get is the number of preliminary statements before an arbitration case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals got 43 uninvolved editors' comments in the span of roughly a week. This is an overestimate of what a RRFA petiton would get insofar as not every editor adding a statement wants a desysop, but its a big underestimate in that the amount of effort it takes to write a statement is much higher than what it takes to add a simple vote. Mach61 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also there's a disincentive to add redundant preliminary statements Mach61 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good observation. Based on that, it seems like at least 50 in 30 days (and a relatively higher number on one year, if the one year period is even used at all) would not be an unreasonable threshold. Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to the petition at the end of one year if there aren't 50 signers? Is the admin forever immune to recall? Or can a new recall be immediately started, and the same people sign it again? Neither solution seems ideal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As written, it's a rolling window: within the last 1 year. isaacl (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, do people get to "bump" their signatures to a later timestamp? (Also not ideal.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the idea is to determine if over a given period of time there is a concern about the trustworthiness of an admin, I think it's reasonable for people to re-affirm that they continue to be concerned. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine one would only need to re-affirm their concerns after the year is expired on their signature. Easily accomplished by re-signing once the prior had fallen off. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are signers of the petition allowed to give their reasons on the petition page, or it just a straight signature and nothing else? If anything beyond a simple signature is allowed, I can see this turning into a List of reasons why this admin sucks that would rival some off-wiki attack sites. Not to mention the inevitable drama. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does happen at dewiki, and it does occasionally lead to the administrative removal of (parts of) the explanations given for recall votes. It does additionally lead to "I would support" vote lists on the talk page of many reconfirmation pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a discussion ever makes sense on an RRFA petition. Any cross-questioning only leads to a lot more strife than necessary. I'm not sure if that extends to "no reasonings" or "just a statement". I personally think "Just signatures" approach is much more preferable than risk the RRFA request page becoming an "attack page".

That said, it might be good to consider creative solutions to allow "Airing concerns" in a reasonable manner. Only signatures allowed, with editors expected to discuss concerns on User talk and AN? Allowing a single link with signatures, or in edit summaries? I do not expect "Reasoning+Signatures" to remain cordial without heavy moderation, but a side solution may work? Soni (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a procedural safeguard against mass-nominations using this process. For example, you can't do an end run around consensus and have 50 people who think admin activity should be stricter recall all our less active admins. A limit of ~5 concurrent recall requests per extended confirmed user, and/or a rule that every recall be specific to the admin being recalled feels appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the first of those two rules, but the second one seems too vague and unenforceable. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should think about the case where we have parallel arbcom proceedings and an admin recall now. I'd suggest that unless there's a really good reason not to, the arbcom case should go first. If arbcom goes first and declines to desysop, and the community desysops via a recall, that's a check on arbcom and an indicator that no really, they did lose the trust of the community." If the admin goes and passes their recall, and then arbcom desysops, the hope is that arbcom knew something we didn't (e.g. private evidence), otherwise this feels like arbcom overruling the community, which ... isn't great. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree! The recall petition can accumulate signatures during the ArbCom proceedings, but the actual re-election should occur after ArbCom renders a verdict. Beyond your point about parallel procedures creating conflicting rulings, an ArbCom decision to not desysop could nonetheless produce information cited during a subsequent re-election considered by the wider community. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about the "within 30 days" deadline for admins to open their RRFA. Could a procedure make sense where, after 30 days, their sysop bit is removed, but they can ask to get it back within a certain time (6 months, a year), provided that they then immediately start an RRFA? A bit similar to ArbCom cases being suspended. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: I'm a firm believer that the 16C idea is good and that the numbers just need to be tweaked. So:
- An RRFA petition needs 40 signatures in 10 days to succeed
  - Rationales are allowed on petition, but are unnecessary. Replies to other petitioners are strictly prohibited, though a "general discussion" section for the petition should probably exist
- If a petition fails to activate a RRFA, that admin cannot be subject to another petition for at first six months, and from then on a year.
- Anyone who supports a petition, even if they retract their support, is barred from supporting or starting another petition against that specific admin for two years. There is no restriction on voting in multiple RRFAs for the same person
- Any admin (uninvolved with the user in question and admin the petition is against) may unilateraly topic ban/page block disruptive users from starting or supporting positions.
Mach61 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the proposed conditions seem intended to ensure there are significant concerns about an administrator's actions before a time-limited petition is initiated, by providing disincentives for starting a failed petition. I'm uneasy, though, that the disincentive for supporting a failed petition is too strong, thus preventing the process from proceeding in practice. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might like to extend that to a full 14 days and drop the re-support timeframe to 6 months or 1 year (no change for re-nominating), but I support the overall proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for clarity that this reply is talking about isaacl's proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean Mach61's proposal? isaacl (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, misread the signatures. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to tweak this, I'd want to scale the required number of signatories by the size of the user communities; i.e if enwiki has N times as many EC editors as dewiki, then we should require N times as many signatories. But overall, I'd say that the fact that this has been working on dewiki means we shouldn't try to bikeshed the details, and I'm happy to supress my desire to tweak this aspect if it encourages others to supress their tweaking tendencies. If 25 disgruntled users manage to railroad an admin into an RRFA and that admin can't scrape up a 55% majority plus a sympathetic crat chat, then I'm not too worried about the railroading. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be in favor of just X signatures within 30 days, and if it doesn't hit that after 30 days, it's closed, and there is some cooling off period (maybe another 30 days) before someone can initiate another petition. This will eliminate the petition pages being an ongoing "Sword of Damocles" or as I'd call it, a "hate log." I think there should be a discrete beginning, and ending, for any recall petition, and not have it just be a thing that rolls on forever, because I don't think people will want to volunteer for RFA if that comes with your very own "hate log" in perpetuity. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford made a similar point above, and I agree with you both. Whereas this one-month format for recall petitions supports decisive action outside ArbCom procedures, a full year of deliberations on an editor's alleged wrongdoings is surely better served with our dedicated panel for arbitration. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other RFA2024 proposals[edit]

How would an RRFA interact with admin elections or another proposal that passed? Soni (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most interesting edge case I can think of is an admin who chooses to avoid a recall petition by successfully getting re-elected as an administrator privately. is there a strong desire to change that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what re-elected "privately" means here. If you mean Admin elections (via Proposal 13), then I am in favour of it being equally acceptable to other ways of gaining adminship. 16C, as written, currently allows for any ways of gaining adminship (RFA/Admin elections) to count for "Cannot be recalled for 12 months" Soni (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The designated RfA monitors should definitely cover RRfAs. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 19:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation details[edit]

Are there any implementation details an RRFA process should consider Soni (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should admins be alerted by to the existence of a reconfirmation subpage by a talk page message so they can decide whether to watch it? Should reconfirmation pages be created for all existing admins immediately, or only when need arises? Also, it should probably be clarified that people may strike their signatures on the request for reconfirmation subpage at any time. —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably be a category of all admin reconfirmation subpages, populated by a template at the top of the page that explains rules and process. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few ideas:

Are we sure we want the 50 editors/1 year clause? It has the risk of turning into a list of grievances against administrators who work in contentious areas. I think it's better if we stick with one month; obvious cases can be handled through this, but more sustained issues (the kind of things that build up over a year) can go through ArbCom.
Who can strike signatures, clerk, and close the petition? (I would presume only crats for all three.)
Clarify that it should be 30 days/1 year from the opening, not the most recent signature, otherwise petitions risk turning into permathreads.
I would make clear what support/oppose would mean in an RRFA, and whether they should be renamed.

I drafted an example of what these kinds of changes, alongside a few others, could look like in my sandbox. If that's too much change at once, I'm happy to propose it as an alternative when the proposal period opens. Giraffer (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could make solid arguments against both the 25/month and the 50/year. The former is hotheaded ANI filers, the latter is a buildup of petty grievances. How do we prevent the exigencies of both? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the number of signatures needed is really the only way to do that. As for the month vs year, I'd still argue that a month with a high threshold is better, because set high enough, the threshold would force the RRFA to be triggered only by a sharp loss of trust. Getting 25 or more people to agree in a month that a user should be desysopped seems pretty difficult. I struggle to see what kind of scenarios would mean that a user should be desysopped under the 50/year clause; all the recent desysops I can think of have been triggered by a single incident, which would fall into the 25/month category. Giraffer (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the point here is to allow more desysops in situations that do not rise to Arbcom level. An admin who regularly makes low-profile questionable AfD closes could easily pick up a handful of recall votes per AfD, from different people each time. Perhaps the admin will stop closing contentious AfDs when they have 40 recall voters. Whether that is good or bad depends on the merits of each of these closes. (The provision does not have to be actually used to have an effect). —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal, Giraffer. I have two issues:

1. A no consensus outcome would lead to tool removal. Nearly everywhere else on Wikipedia, no consensus means retain the status quo. Now, I have no idea what a "no consensus" close could possibly look like at RRfA, but I feel like it should logically follow the same policy elsewhere on enwiki, which is no consensus = keep the tools.

2. Point 5 is confusingly worded. More importantly, if a "a failed desysop motion at ArbCom" basically gives immunity to RRfAs, this would change the behavior of ArbCom in unintended ways. I think the two processes should be kept separate.

Beyond just this proposal, immunity clauses leave many open questions. Does the first, successful RfA give immunity? What if a new, serious situation arises – could a well-reasoned petition to the 'crats be used to override the immunity period? If we give immunity to the recall process, wouldn't potentially troublesome admins be emboldened to continue controversial behavior? Toadspike (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The no consensus outcome can be changed to mean the tools are kept. Re point 2, that was an attempt to prevent double jeopardy, where ArbCom declines to desysop an admin over an incident but the community does so anyway. If that's a messy place to go to, I can just remove the clause.

It's worth noting that ArbCom will still have the power to desysop individuals, so anything ineligible for this process can still go through them. The immunity clauses are to prevent flip-flopping over a user's permissions (e.g. someone who disagrees with an RRFA close just filing another one). Being immune to this process shouldn't reduce admin accountability, but remove one way in which an admin can be held accountable, making it essentially the same as how desysops would work now. Giraffer (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer the threshold even lower at "preponderance of community sentiment" - crat discretionary zone between 45 and 55% support. This would split the baby on cases where there's no consensus to either maintain the status quo, or default to not having the advanced permission. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog If the discretionary zone is between 45 and 55, where'd you put the "auto-pass"? Soni (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: That would mean an admin would pass their recall without the need for a crat chat at 55% support. The middle of the discretionary range is set at 50% (i.e. where there's no numerical evidence on whether a majority of the community wish to keep the administrator), and a 10% band for bureucrat discretion feels reasonable and in line with previous discretionary ranges. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does an administrator become INVOLVED with respect to a User who adds their name to the petition to remove? What are the implications of that for administration of the Project? Can a User become immune from all administration? Can a User become a target of other administrators? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:AVOIDBLOCK: If I start a recall against every admin, I'll never get blocked! Bwahahaha! Toadspike (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would not need to be every just admins active or very active in enforcement (or even fewer, just the ones active in your area). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not become INVOLVED if someone Opposes them in an RFA. I do not see why RRFAs should be any different Soni (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because a candidate for admin can't be INVOLVED, those conditions can only arise during adminship? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I open an ANI thread against admin XYZ, one could reasonably say they're involved with respect to me. If I merely comment on an ANI thread started by someone else, would they be INVOLVEd with respect to me? and if so, for how long?

I don't know the answer to my questions, but I suspect that a recall petition would work similarly. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be too far afield for a matter as limited as implementation details, and I don't expect it will be warmly received anyway, but I'd just like to note that, while requiring EC on petitions is a good safety valve, I (a) know there are sock farms that control multiple EC accounts, (b) have recently been made aware of the significant sums of money involved in some paid editing (five figures in one recent case of which I'm personally aware), and (c) know some of these farms would probably like to kneecap Admins active in certain areas.
In my ideal version of this proposal, a recall petition - once reaching the required signatory threshold - would be subject to a CU audit as a final step before start of recall. The CU would have the authority to strike the signatures of any "possible" socks. (Full SPI will still be required prior to blocking.) CU without the more robust investigation of an SPI is not onerous to get around, so I don’t purport that this will solve the risk I describe. It will, however, mitigate it at no cost. While this is not something DE feels necessary to do, I’d just keep in mind that the stakes at DE are a lot lower than at EN. Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Sincerely, Dilettante 20:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. I'm ignoring the swipe at dewiki near the end, we don't want to start that fight. Toadspike (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended to be a dig, and I apologize if it came off that way. It's just an observation of the reality that the pecuniary incentives to abusively manipulate EN are, in many cases, significantly higher than those at DE, which is merely a function of traffic and reach versus any measure of relative quality or value. Chetsford (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notice of RfA instructions mandate listings at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion, which is how I find out about every election. While I recognize that immediately listing recall petitions here would result in bloat, emerging support for a higher threshold than dewiki necessitates a way to learn about worthwhile recall petitions to build such support. I would support listing recall petitions at these two locations if they reach 50% of the month-based threshold and removing them if the petitions do not succeed within that first month. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process[edit]

In a few days, the open discussion section will be closed for more specific votable proposals (probably 7 days or so?). Is there a preferred structure for that? Soni (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~My current plan is for "Open discussion" section to be "closed" after 7 days, and then anyone can add a new proposal. A mockup of that structure is at User:Soni/sandbox3.~~ Soni (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few open questions that could be asked, based on the last couple days. I now favour a more modular structure, and have mocked one up at User:Soni/sandbox4.

This is based on the initial format by Theleekycauldron, and then simplified and added options from Mach61 and @Giraffer's proposals. Please feel free to edit the options for clarity and correctness. Soni (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big fan of the modular format, seems like the best way of implementing a close to the effect of "16C is good but needs refinement" Mach61 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for other RRFA mechanisms[edit]

I want to clarify that while I saw a decent amount of support for 16c, and that's why I suggested it as a starting point for this discussion, it didn't gain broad consensus in the first phase. So while tweaking the details of 16c and going with that is certainly an option, it's not the only option. Now that we know the community wants some sort of RRFA, there might be new ideas for how it could be triggered, and I think people should feel free to propose and discuss them here. I also don't see any reason why there can't be more than one triggering mechanism, if multiple proposals find consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voter eligibility[edit]

So only users with Extended Confirmed (30 days + 500 edits) can cast a vote to initiate the RRFA process poll, but then anyone can vote in the actual RRFA? Am I the only one seeing the mismatch in account eligibility between the two steps? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that voter eligibility should match RFA when the RRFA actually begins, which I believe would now require voters to be extended confirmed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments[edit]

I'll be absolutely stunned if this process ever gets used. Plus marks though for creating unneeded bureaucracy that will never be used though. Very creative! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Successfully used, ending in a desysop? Perhaps you're right. But I am certain that some of these petitions will be started, if we go with such a system. The below discussion has convinced me that this may not be a good thing, but not having a path to a community desysop at all seems wrong too. Toadspike (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to be absolutely stunned. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting off-topic discussion, sorry for the inconvenience. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: What do you mean by that? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The probability of this process getting used is 100%. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you plan on using it, or that the chance of it being used or just extremely high in general? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to bait me? Cut it out. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, I'm just confused by what you said. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to announce my intention to start a recall petition, that would be a weird thing to do here, and inappropriate for this discussion. I'm saying it's obvious that the reason there is consensus for admin recall is because people want to recall some admins. Who the admins are or who will start the process doesn't matter. Whether there will actually be a successful recall remains to be seen. But the process will absolutely be used, because people voted for it. Levivich (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify; yes, successfully used to desysop. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's quite different. I'd put it at 50/50 whether it results in any desysops, it's too hard to estimate given we don't know the details of the system yet. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reconfirmation is initiated if 25 editors with Extended Confirmed rights vote for it within the last 1 month. Or if 50 editors with Extended Confirmed rights vote for it within the last 1 year. You have got to be kidding me. If you can't drum up enough support to initiate the process in a month, it just stays open forever until you do get enough support? You do know that admins are human beings and maybe might get a little discouraged if there is a page just permanently open, encouraging people to agree that they suck? I'd much rather be dragged before ArbCom than be subject to that level of ongoing attacks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it would get deleted if no-one comments for a year, but the chance of that happening for any active admin is nil. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6 months, not a year, after which each individual comment gets automatically removed. The recall pages at dewiki are permanently open (after the initial year of protection), and they're often used as a place for (negative) feedback (and positive feedback on its talk pages) even if there is no current hope of an actual recall happening. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds horrible for the admins, and not like something we want here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree; it very clearly says a year, not 6 months. @Just Step Sideways; who cares that admins are human beings? The German Wikipedia certainly didn't care, and when they started their de-admin process they lost something like 30% of their admin corps. That's a good thing, right? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ToBeFree was referring to the relevant section from de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Intro, Die Wiederwahl kommt zustande, wenn 25 stimmberechtigte Benutzer innerhalb eines Monats oder 50 stimmberechtigte Benutzer innerhalb von sechs Monaten den Antrag unterstützen., which translation tools tell me says "six months". However that's just the rolling window size, which governs when the oldest comments are removed. It does seem to me that as ToBeFree says, the pages are up permanently to collect comments. isaacl (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft In phase one someone stated the German system was mostly meant to deal with inactive admins. Enwiki's existing inactive admin policy has certainly removed more than 30% of admins over time. Mach61 22:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not referring to inactive admins on de.wikipedia. I am referring to their admin recall process which gutted their admin corps. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft What I meant was that, if (I could be wrong) dewiki did not previously have an inactive admins policy, and this system was how they implemented that, a 30% reduction in accounts with the sysop flag is entirely reasonable. Mach61 14:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Could be. I don't know. I do know they implemented a de-admin for cause process independent of inactivity, and as a result they gutted their admin corps. When their admins faced the de-admin process, a significant portion of them just quit rather than deal with it. As I noted above, I seriously doubt this process will ever be used to actually desysop someone. But, I do think it will cause a significant portion of admins to simply give up and quit. That's something that's being lost in this process; there's a lot of cattle manure that admins have to deal with. Adding this to the steaming pile isn't going to help. Admins are volunteers. Volunteering to put up with this crap isn't something many admins will want to do. This, in a day and age of declining admins with no hope in sight of reversing the trend. But, if this project wants to shoot itself in both feet, who am I to stand in the way? This whole process has got a nice steamroller going. Maybe the silver lining is that when it's done destroying the admin corps, the project will have to face the reality of a project without anywhere near enough admins. Great stuff! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm old enough in wiki-years to have been here for WP:CDARFC. I really cannot see much likelihood of anything getting consensus, once it gets boiled down to actionable specifics. Editors are going to have to come up with clear evidence that any new proposal will fix something that ArbCom is failing to handle – and that it won't create admin roadkill. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no individual proposal is able to get consensus, what happens? The community already gained consensus to have something, so I'm not sure what we would do if nobody can agree on what the something is. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DESYSOP2019 had a similar outcome in that !voters agreed on the overall principle of recall but not the specifics ... and nothing happened. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is essentially what happens every single time we try to have this conversation, going back a lot further than 2019. I used to strongly support the concept of community-based removal of admins, but it seems every time we discuss it, the solutions get worse than the last round. I finally found myself convinced that ArbCom should just keep doing it. The way to make sure they do it right is to elect people witht a history of making difficult decisions and holding others to account. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community may have (in Phase 1) had some sort of consensus to do some sort of "something", but to go from "something" to a specific proposal requires a further consensus in favor of that specific proposal, which is a lot more difficult than just supporting some general principle. If no individual proposal can get community consensus, then we stick with the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]