Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop

Shortcuts

This is a page to propose and refine changes to rework Wikipedia:Administrator recall. You can discuss the changes here, but this page is more akin to the idea lab – this is not a voting page. After the reworkshop closes, the proposals will be voted on at an RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a petition

Under what circumstances may a petition be opened?

Option 1: At any time (status quo)
Option 2: Following a thread at a noticeboard about the admin's conduct being closed or archived
Option 3: Following advance notice to the admin via their talk page

If you !voted for Option 2 or 3, when may the petition be started?

Option 1: Immediately following closure or archiving
Option 2: 48 hours after closure or archiving
Option 3: 1 week after closure or archiving

If you !voted for Option 3, when may the petition be started?

Option 1: 48 hours after notice
Option 2: One week after notice

This has come up at a few places, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added option 3. We should probably consider timeframes other than 1 week for 3 and 4 (e.g. 24/48 hours/5 days), maybe ask something like should there be a delay and get people to specify what their preferred one is? Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into three. IMO five days and one week are similar enough that we risk vote-splitting/the spoiler effect. Same goes for 48 and 24 hours. I couldn't find a way to split into only two while keeping it clear and making immediately following closure an option. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petition length

Note that an RfC is currently ongoing on this topic. In case further discussion is needed, how long should a petition be?

Option 1: 30 days (no change)
Option 2: 14 days
Option 3: 7 days
Something else (specify)

Number of editors

How many signing editors are required to trigger a reconfirmation RfA?

Option 1: 25 editors (no change)
Option 2: 50 editors
Something else (specify)

I will say: one of the hazards of these first two is that I'd probably support changing to 50 editors/2 weeks, but would rather 25 editors/1 week to 25 editors/2 weeks or 50 editors/1 week. So in that way, they're not really independent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 (the status quo) is okay IMO. Miniapolis 22:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requisite support of uninvolved editors

Of the signatories, how many must have been uninvolved with any dispute in which the admin concerned acted in their capacity as an administrator within the last 1/2/3/x (separate question) months? (See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Workshopping the RfC)

Option 1: five other than the initiator, and their signatures are a latch—they must be collected first and the petition is only then unlocked for everyone else, and if one of the five withdraws their signature, it only subtracts a signature, but can't lock the petition up.
Option 2: X editors (specify details)
Option 3: zero (no rule dealing with uninvolved signatories)

Option 1 is the specific formulation of this requirement that was come up with after some brainstorming at VPI. There are certain complications if the "latch mechanism" isn't used, involving what happens if an uninvolved signatory withdraws their signature (Option 1 solves that).—Alalch E. 11:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 would minimize axe-grinding. Miniapolis 22:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of signatures

Should editors be allowed to have additional text accompanying a signature? (See related RfC.)

Option 1: Yes (no change)
Option 2: No, signatures only
Option 3: Only a very brief, optional explanation; further discussion goes in the respective section
Something else (specify)

Discussion section

Should there be a discussion section on the recall page? (See related RfC.)

Option 1: Yes (no change)
Option 2: No
Something else (specify)

Discussion elsewhere

Given that there is no discussion section on the petition page (see the previous section), should there be a discussion concurrent with the petition somewhere else?

Option 1: Yes—on the petition talk page
~~Option 2: Yes—on the petition initiator's user talk page~~
~~Option 3: Yes—on the talk pages of each of the signatories~~
~~Option 4: Yes—on the administrator's talk page~~
Option 5: Yes—on some specific page other than any of the above (specify)
Option 6: Yes—just "Yes", and it does not need to be specified where
~~Option 7: No (the implications need to be specified—it is implausible that discussing this topic can be prohibited)~~

@Alalch E.: 2, 3, and 4 don't seem to me to be in the scope of this RfC. We can't restrict what topics can come up on user talk pages. We can control whether it's discussed on the petition page or its talk. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These options follow from what was discussed in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Avoiding a long month of drama, for example: There would be no restriction on clarification being sought on user talk pages .... While we can't restrict what topics are created on user pages, if it becomes customary to hold discussions on this topic on user talk pages, and there is no central place to discuss, any such user talk threads should be exempt from WP:OWNTALK, and it is possible that the RfA monitor function should extend even there. (Currently, the discussion section comments are subject to monitoring: Any signature or comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship.) —Alalch E. 10:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we can control more. And for example, use of the petition talk page can be prevented. If the petition talk page is the place for discussion, the RfA monitor function which currently exists on the petition page should be extended to that page. This could be another RfC question. —Alalch E. 10:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can really prohibit the discussion beyond the petition and its talk page. Moving the discussion of the petition on the talk page allows for a slower-paced discussion, where not every signatory is compelled to add a comment, while still allowing for a centralized discussion which could be useful to bring up additional evidence. On the other hand, if we want by design to not have a centralized discussion to avoid a RfA-like pressure, we can prohibit the discussion on both the petition page and its talk page, while leaving other places (like user talk threads) subject to their usual rules. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can prohibit discussion on both the petition page and its talk page, and if we by doing so inevitably cause the discussion to migrate to another place or places, we might want to also have, for example, word limits and the monitoring function preserved in all those places. —Alalch E. 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like CREEP to me. If we prohibit a discussion section, people will soon figure out what works best. Even at the Graham87 petition, people were willing to discuss it on the talk page, on my talk page, and on Graham87's talk page, based on the focus and sensitivity of the discussion. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This needs to be explored because many people have said that they thought that the petition would be a simple gathering of signatures without the discussion, and that the lively forum format, as what happened with the Graham87 petition, is completely different from how they imaged the petition stage would work. It can not be assumed that these editors simply thought that the same thing should be replicated onto the talk page. Chaotic Enby believes that this would allow for a slower-paced discussion; I would say that it *might*. And the only distinction being the pace becoming maybe somewhat slower, is far from the original mental picture of many people: Signature collection with no discussion. —Alalch E. 17:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we specify a preferred venue (with the exception of 3, since that's decentralized), everyone will congregate there and we'll have just shifted the forumstyle conversation to a new location. Option 7 won't pass an RFC. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing is specified, that means that the petition talk page has been set as the new norm and the RfC needs to be transparent about that, because the distinction is highly speculative and comes down to a technicality. It's possible to specify a plurality of pages, i.e. a decentralized discussion: Statements with rationales underlying the signatures go on respective signatories' user talk page and responses also there, and every such page containing such topical discussion matter is subject to RfA-style monitoring. And let's say the admin comes on your talk to defend from an allegation and you remove their comment and leave yours per WP:OWNTALK. Shouldn't be allowed. Messages of moral support and praise can go on the admin's talk page. Objections to the process and various generalized protestations can go on the talk page of the page describing the process. These are possibilities, and things that can be controlled. —Alalch E. 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'm gonna strikethrough a few of these, since we should be keeping this RfC as tight as possible and discussion seems to be leaning against including them. Feel free to keep to discussing, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word limits

Should there be a word limit? (See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Workshopping the RfC)

Option 1: Yes—the same for all participants
Option 2: Yes—the same for all participants, extended for the petition initiator and administrator
Option 3: Yes—something else
Option 4: No

For a "something else" option, we could replace the petition initiator's extended word limit by a "petition statement", started by the initiator but which other signatories can edit, for instance to provide additional evidence. This could both limit the first mover advantage and allow for new evidence while still limiting conversation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word limit extent

Given that there is a word limit, what should the number be? (This will have to be decided during a later stage.)

Closing a petition

When should a petition be closed? (Choose one or more.)

Option 1: If it is withdrawn (see next question)
Option 2: When the petition reaches the threshold number of signatures.
Option 3: A delayed time (e.g. 12/24/48 hours) after the petition reaches the threshold number of signatures (specify what time).
Option 4: When the subject of the petition agrees to start an RRfA.
Option 5: When the subject of the petition starts an RRfA.
Option 6: At the end of the allotted time period.
Something else (specify)

I've split withdrawing into it's own question below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing a petition

Should the filer be permitted to withdraw a petition? (Choose one or more).

Option 1: No
Option 2: Yes, but only if there are no other signatures on the petition.
Option 3: Yes, but only if there are fewer than a certain number of signatures (specify).
Option 4: Yes, but only if it has not yet been certified.
Option 5: Yes, but only within a specific period of time (e.g. 24/48 hours) (specify).
Option 6: Yes, at any time.

Thryduulf, what does certification mean in this context? If I've been following this process as closely as anyone and don't know, I guarantee the average RFC voter won't. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means it's reached the threshold of signatures (currently 25) required to force a resignation or re-RFA. If there is a better term, please use it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best term to me."Yes, but only if there is no quorum" could work, but that implies this is a vote (or even a !vote), rather than just headcounting. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous petition limit

How many petitions can be open at once?

Option 1: Unlimited
Option 2: 2 petitions
Option 3: 5 petitions
Something else (specify)

This question is obviously likely to be influenced by the others: if a petition is likely to only be open for a week, 2 at a time is probably plenty. If it's likely to be more like a month, we would probably want more like 10-12.

Given a user may be a signatory on up to five concurrent petitions, it'd make no sense to set the number of active petitions lower unless this RFC is trying to directly override the consensus previously established. I'ved added an option for five petitions for that reason. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what problem this is meant to solve with the current recall process? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Animal lover 666 since they added this. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator voluntarily opt into a RRFA?

Do we want to clarify if an administrator can voluntarily go through the RRFA process?

Option 1: Yes
Option 2: No

This question comes up in two places - first if an administrator decides to go through the RRFA process before the petition reaches the required numbered of signatures. The second place is to allow administrators who voluntarily wish to go through a reconfirmation of administrative privileges (the RRFA process has a lower threshold to retain the privileges). --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This partially intersects with Options 4 and 5 of § Closing a petition. I think it should be distilled into only addressing the "second place". —Alalch E. 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to specifically specify this, we'll need to include whether an RRfA when there is no petition resets the 1 year timer. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]