Wikipedia talk:Re-request for adminship

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – index of previous unsuccessful proposals
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review – led to creation of this process
  • Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs
  • Phase II/Administrator recall
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review § Administrator recall, phase II – discussion of the closes above and whether to host a third RFC

Re-request for adminship

What is a "Re-request for adminship", is an entire new process needed for this - or is it just going to use the existing RFA mechanisms, along with all RFA rules (including future rules), etc (with the only difference being the closing criteria and closing option of 'desysop')? Would an Wikipedia:Administrator elections suffice? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as per the initial proposal, A RRFA will be identical to any RFA, but with lower thresholds. As per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Reconfirmation by admin elections, passing an administrator election is a suitable method to respond to a successful recall petition. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this page should spell that out. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; the page is still under construction and that's good feedback. (The second point regarding admin elections is currently mentioned.) isaacl (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I continue to think that either a) we do not use the acronym "RRFA" if the process is the same as an RFA (but with lower thresholds) to avoid confusion (as the process is the same) or b) (preferred), we recognize that an RRFA is similar to an RFA, but not identical to an RFA (as there may be a desire to link to the recall petition or modify the nominations/required questions to better fit the circumstance of a referenda RFA). - Enos733 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Standard question 1 doesn't really make sense for a re-RFA and question 3 is rather oddly worded in the context (a successful recall petition can't happen without there being some sort of conflict) Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

These aren't legal depositions; the administrator can answer in the spirit of the question with appropriate modifications, as has been done in the past when admins have voluntarily undergone a reconfirmation request for adminship (why do I want to continue to be an administrator?). isaacl (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference is to avoid jargon and not use an abbreviation at all. Personally I think it's within the discretion of implementation to make some small tweaks to the RfA template, but I don't think there can be too much deviation, without getting beyond the scope of the consensus so far. I still don't feel that it's necessary to link to the recall petition in a specific spot. Editors are going to do it in the discussion or their viewpoint statements if they feel it is warranted. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A story

Once upon a time, there was a Wikipedia where two admins got into a WP:WHEELWAR. One of the admins had a reputation for WP:RECKLESS, and he had recently survived a recall petition. The other one had never caused any particular concerns before. The first admin made a bold decision without community support. He refused to self-revert, so the other admin reverted his bold change. While the community was still discussing the situation, the first admin re-reverted to his preferred state.

From there, everything got worse.

When the dust settled a few days later, the community realized: They couldn't de-sysop the admin who started the wheel war for another six months, because the community de-sysopping procedure specified an immunity period. Every time they had a discussion about whether to desysop an admin, and then decided not to, they were effectively granting immunity from prosecution for the stated time period. As a result, the admins who cause problems the most frequently were paradoxically the ones most likely to be protected by the desysopping policy.

This seems like a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:WHEELWAR would be addressed by arbcom, not recall. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A request for arbitration can be filed at any time, and a pattern of poor behaviour will make it more likely that a request will be accepted. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So two bites at the apple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the point of this thread to reargue the entire recall proposal from Phase I of the RFC, or to reargue just the 6-month waiting period proposal from Phase II? Levivich (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As a purely practical matter, if you want this to get adopted, then you're going to have to be ready to address the obvious objections.

For example: Any set delay means temporary immunity. Maybe this is the right balance, and maybe it's not, but we should admit that it does have an obvious downside.

For example: You say that WHEELWAR is ArbCom's job, but this proposal doesn't say that. Maybe it should mention it? Or maybe WHEELWAR should actually be something that the community can address directly, especially if it's not absolutely clear-cut that it's a True™ WHEELWAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't let the tag fool you, this is not a proposal, it's documenting the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Then again, do not be fooled into thinking that this page is policy that has already gotten consensus from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you think we need to have a confirmatory up-and-down vote on the outcome of Phase II, but even if we do have one, it still won't be a proposal. We can't just propose whatever we want and put that to an up-or-down vote, we have to respect the consensus that was found in Phase II. So there is no point in trying to workshop details of how the system should work, since that was already done in Phase II. It's kind of funny because WAID said "two bites of the apple" and here we're talking about three, or maybe even four, bites at the Admin recall proposal apple. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if we stipulated that every sentence on this page had already been individually and overwhelmingly approved by the largest group of editors ever, that would not prevent us from making changes later. It's perfectly normal for something to get adopted and later adjusted or clarified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The key word there is "later", as in after it's implemented, not before. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by design, a community-initiated recall process does not supersede the current arbitration policy that gives the committee the authority to remove administrative privileges. The discussion about having a respite between petitions covered your story. If there weren't an option to file an arbitration request, then the tradeoffs for having a respite period would have been different and perhaps a different consensus viewpoint would have been reached. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see this process as more suited to tackling long-term admin conduct or loss of trust issues, whereas ArbCom is still better placed to take immediate action in response to serious misconduct. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This. I thought OP was referring to a real event, until I realized, there was never a general community recall procedure in the past of any sort. So would the opposition to creating a community recall procedure really be the hypothetical prospect that (upon failure) it grants temporary protection from the community recall procedure? (I imagine there will be plenty who would not support such a procedure without some kind of mandatory cooldown period, just as with AfD and everything else here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Who closes the petitions?

Bureaucrats? Admins? Any editor? Is involvement an issue, given how cut-and-dry the result should be? – Joe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A bot could do it. Petitions don't have to be closed because there is no finding of consensus: either they have 25 signatures in 30 days or they don't. A bot could determine that. And bots are never involved :-) Levivich (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I preusmed it would be a crat, since someone needs to make sure all the signatures are valid. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think involvement is an issue since it's purely a vote by signature. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be a crat to make sure signatures are valid; per Phase II, the clerking of petitions (including striking/removing invalid votes) is the same as the clerking of RFAs (which doesn't require crats). Levivich (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Initiating RRFAs

@Voorts: In your close of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Desysop_after_Recall_petition you wrote that both options A and E found consensus. But as far as I can see, these are contradictory. Option E says that a bureaucrat will open the RRFA within thirty days (respecting requests for a delay from the admin). Option A says that if the admin does not open the request within thirty days, they'll be desysopped – but given option E, when would that ever happen? Also, what if the admin doesn't want to make an RRFA (i.e. resigns their adminship), does the crat still have to open one?

And Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Reconfirmation_by_admin_elections introduces another ambiguity. If the admin can stand in an election instead making an RRFA, what happens if the next election is not scheduled within the next thirty days? Can they retain their tools while they wait? – Joe (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first one, I don't think there's a contradiction. Option E was presented as being in addition to another option and several editors supported both. My reading is that if an admin requests a 30 day extension, then they have 30 days. If not, a crat starts the RRFA.

My understanding of the election part is that the election needs to be in the 30 day period, so the sequence is request 30 day extension, stand for election during that period if there is one, otherwise start an RRFA. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But option A says that the admin will be desysopped after thirty days. In what circumstance would that happen? – Joe (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If the admin doesn't open an RRFA after receiving an extension, a crat can desysop in their discretion at the end of the extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But Option E says it's the crat that opens the RRFA (delayed or not), not the admin. See where I'm coming from? – Joe (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A crat won't start the RFA An RFA won't start unless the admin wants to run again. The admin can choose to take the desysop instead (and can run an RFA after the 30/60 days under the usual rules). Levivich (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if it's already been discussed and agreed somewhere? It's not currently covered on this page. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't love the "start the RRFA" being defaulted to 'crats - preferably the admin would do it so they can make an opening statement and acknowledge acceptance. If crat's open it will just say something like "per recall petition". — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Joe and xaos make a good point. All of the options except E in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Desysop after Recall petition explicitly said it's the admin who starts the RFA: If an admin does not start an RRFA within.... There is some contradiction there, because Option E is A bureaucrat should open an RRFA immediately after a successful Recall petition by default, but the admin may instead request a delay. I still think logically speaking it can't be anyone other than the admin who decides whether or not to initiate the RFA. You can't put someone up for RFA without their consent. Voorts is the closer of that section (and I'm involved of course), but my interpretation of E is that it's more about the delay issue than it is about who starts the RFA. It just doesn't make sense for a crat to open up an RFA for someone else--it's gotta be the candidate who makes that call of whether or not to run again. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As I discussed in another location, I think the responsibility is shared with the bureaucrats and the administrator in question. The bureaucrats are co-ordinating with the admin to determine what approach they want to follow within 30 days: start a re-request with appropriate statements in place, be a candidate in an administrator election within an appropriate time frame, or not seek to retain administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully the discretion will allow for some flexibility around the 30 day mark, e.g. an admin indicating they want to run in an election starting in 33 days time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are collaborative editors just like anyone else. They'll work out the best approach. (Note the approved proposal gave bureaucrats the discretion to remove administrative privileges, rather than mandating it on a fixed schedule.) isaacl (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)