Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Graham87

Withdrawn petition

@Thebiguglyalien, Serial Number 54129, Balph Eubank, and Ratnahastin: I've withdrawn the petition because it's quite clear it's not going to result in a recall, but anyone may revert me. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Endorse withdrawal. I was thinking about suggesting this myself. I'm not convinced that years of damaging misuse of admin tools should be forgotten because of an ANI discussion and a few weeks, but bigger picture, WP:SNOW should apply to admin recall. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm guessing it got reverted and reopened because the policy says "A petition is closed after thirty days.", with no mention of a withdrawal. The policy is written as a simple threshold mechanism with time limit, so closing early or withdrawing may be disenfranchising the people who have already participated or those who wanted to participate but wait until the 29th day. Otherwise, they could be started and stopped in an abusive way, to harass admins because withdrawing can be used to bypass the "another petition to recall the same administrator may not be started for six months from the date the last one was closed." clause. An editor (or a tag team) could start and stop them every month, withdrawing after a week or two, just to make the admin look bad or as pure harassment, as a withdrawn process isn't "closed". Short of abuse (sockpuppet starting the process, etc), stopping the process via withdrawal or early close is inconsistent with the very structure of this type of process, as well as removes accountability for those that start it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's too early to consider withdrawal. It needs to run the full duration. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Dilettante: it seems to be OK if you would like to to strike and indent (un-count) your own numbered support statement, however you can't withdraw other people's supports. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I withdrew the petition because I'm aware admins are people too and a futile RRfA would be hard on Graham87. I maintain my signature, however, because I'm still of the opinion Graham87 shouldn't be an admin. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  As big a debacle as some people see this as being, the discussions have helped me put it all in context and to better understand whether I should support the petition or not support the petition or support the user if this goes to RRFA -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Clovermoss's concerns

Clovermoss has raised concerns in the discussion section about the social dynamics of this process, and I think that discussion is better had here rather than inside a discussion relating to Graham87 in particular. Specifically, the main concern I see her raising is social pressure on non-admins against supporting the recall: I think it's a bit harder for non-admins to go against the grain when it comes to high stakes processes like RfA due to complicated social dynamics. and a non-admin is already making a pretty brave stance filing something like this at all. She also points out: there are several [non-admins] opposing this specific petition, but all the people for it are non-admins.

I'm not sure whether Clovermoss has that widget installed that highlights signatures of admins. I don't. There are a lot of active Wikipedians who are sometimes jocularly referred to as "admins in all but name" because of their combination of long tenure, high profile, and activity at noticeboards, in policy discussions, and as non-admin closers. (There are also many low-profile admins; some don't work at AN/I at all, for example.) There isn't as much of a line between admins and non-admins, even in social capital, as one might think. I'm also not sure the comparison is valid between the length of this process—time allowed for accruing a minimum number of signatures, while the admin is on notice that their adminship has been called into question—and the length of time ArbCom gives an admin to respond to the institution of a process there. Mainly because the proposal on the table at the time of the link (see "Motion: Open and suspend case") was for Dbachmann to be temporarily desysopped until he responded, with the debate being over how long he had before the desysop became permanent. I'd say that illustrates the difference between the ArbCom process and this process, regardless of the problem that this first recall petition has revealed with having a month with no provision for opposition or defence. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have that widget, but I've learned over time pretty much who is an admin and who isn't. I remember when I wasn't an admin, there were certain situations I encountered where people said I made the right call, but I should've let an admin make it. I didn't like that then and I don't like that now. My comparison with the Dbachmann situation isn't perfect but it was meant to emphasize how non-admins don't really have as much power as admins do when it comes to certain things. An admin gets months to respond to an ArbCom case about their conduct, but non-admins don't really have an equivalent of "someone thinks I'm using my userrights wrong, let's ignore the person raising these concerns for months". Even the ArbCom filing template had me specify who was an admin and who wasn't. People are sometimes recognized for their merits regardless, but I do think there is some complicated social factors at play here. Admins are generally given more benefit of the doubt when push comes to shove. I've definitely noticed people react to me a bit differently since I've received the tools (I'm not sure how much of this is being an admin vs being the Wikimedian of the Year). I haven't really changed so it's been a bit jarring to see that. I'd think standards would be higher for people who've been around longer and should be familiar with what's expected. My main argument here was about fairness and how it can be very lonely to be that dissenting voice when more powerful people disagree. I'm not saying people can't learn from mistakes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's one thing I would take away from my previous wall of text, it would be this: by trying to place myself in their shoes, I can imagine what it must be like to feel like there's some sort of double standard going on. If a non-admin was accused of biting newcomers, or using inappropriate warning levels, they'd probably have their rollback rights removed and have limited rights to appeal. They'd be going through that mostly alone. And if they went through RfA shortly afterwards? There's a good chance that'd be a snow close as unsuccessful. That's ultimately why I think we should have a recall process in some form. It helps even the playing field a little bit, so to speak, and offers a way for non-admins to hold admins accountable if they feel like things aren't being handled correctly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should have a recall process. I have voted in favour of a few, though I don't remember voting for this one. And there is a bit of a "blue wall" phenomenon at AN/I sometimes. But I think you might be surprised if you did check who's an admin and who isn't. I am, repeatedly (but I won't install the widget; I avoid widgets and much of the time I'd rather not know). I honestly don't remember whether I was still an admin or had already been demoted for lèse-majesté (well, gross disobedience) when I backed up a non-admin whistleblower at ArbCom. (And Serial, one of the signers, is not an admin but maybe should be.) I take your point that giving an admin 3 months to respond to an ArbCom case shows admin privilege; but only if I squint, because by delaying their response, the admin was just delaying any possibility of having their bit restored. While in this instance there's been disagreement about whether the admin can or should respond; as well as about whether the problems are still happening after 3 ANIs and an offsite thread. Your example says more about the awfulness of the ArbCom experience for both reporter and object, which as you know was the rationale for having a non-ArbCom process. Anyway, that's how I see it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, you three have enormous social capital as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry you lost the bit-- that sounds unfair to the project. (The three months is not admin privilege as the admin has already lost the bit..) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about her specifically, I was making some generalizations about how non-admins can get treated. I'm not sure I like that I have "enormous social capital", I just want everyone to be treated fairly and be taken seriously. I wish we were all just kinder to each other, you know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the admin has already lost the bit, yes, that's true, but I think it's an example of the Wikipedia:Super Mario effect. As I pointed out in my case request, if newbie me had logged in and said those things, I would have been indef blocked as NOTHERE. Dbachmann only lost the sysop bit. The fact that we even have a page called the "Super Mario effect" shows I'm not the only one has recognized the phenomenon in some way. I don't think this is how things should be.

I don't think the solution means everyone needs to rake admins over the coals when they make mistakes, just that non-admins are taken more seriously and given more grace. We're all members of a community, afterall, and it can hurt if you feel like your contributions aren't valued. People don't usually criticize an admin because they want them to feel horrible, it's generally because they have good faith concerns. I don't think the Dbachmann situation is directly comparable to this recall petition. For one thing, Graham hasn't made some huge mistake like unblocking a clearly racist editor because the blocking admin did so for "ideological reasons". I'd probably support a reRfA for Graham because he does important work and seems open to listening to feedback. But I support a recall process generally because it helps non-admins hold admins accountable. When your options are ArbCom (all admins) and ANI (an admin actually takes action or not), people might feel like they just have to put up with some sort of double standard. I hope that makes things clearer, I'm not sure I've been communicating my thoughts here very well throughout this process. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making me not be the only one talking about the Super Mario effect in the context of admin accountability/recall. Again, this is why I believe there should be a clear distinction between a recall process (the admin losing the bit if the community doesn't want them to have it anymore) and sanctions (which should be independent from having the bit). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps general conversation on the recall process could continue in another place? I think it would be better for talk pages of specific recall petitions to be more tightly focused on issues directly related to the petition, to minimize the amount of notifications to page watchers, and to help a broader audience participate in discussions about the process overall. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really plan on saying more. I've said my piece. My comments are a small drip in the pond for anyone watching the page, anyways. I don't think this conversation nessecarily has to be moved because anyone interested in implementation of recall as a process is going to be paying close attention to the first petition that has ever opened. If you think there's places where other interested parties would like to read what I wrote, feel free to comment elsewhere about these comments or simply ping them. I don't really want to engage more on this specific page but if people have questions/comments/concerns, my talk page is always open and I'll eventually get back to them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Some data

Since there's been some discussion about admins vs. non-admins on this, here's the "admin highlighter script" breakdown with some data up through ~2:30pm EST on 11/6 (note: this is the final update given the petition is now closed):

(Note this is a very rough pass that I did manually, so apologies if I shortened or misspelled a name, and I may have double counted or skipped somewhere, take w/ a grain of salt big enough to recall an admin):

Discussion Analysis

Support/Oppose/Neutral	Total Count	Admins	Non-Admins	Editors
Supports Petition	27	7	20	Dilettante, Thebiguglyalien, Serial Number 51429, Balph Eubank, Ratnahastin, Sp, Jessintime, Stanistani, Herostratus, Isaidnoway, Rollinginhisgrave, Sir MemeGod, Iggy pop goes the weasel, JSS*, Chaotic Enby, Kline, Stedil, Aoidh*, Deepfriedokra*, A.B., Silverseren, EspressoAddict*, The Wordsmith*, Ritchie333*, Funisoptional, Schwede66*, S Marshall
Total Opposes (all types)	47	26	21
Opposes Petition; No express opposition to current process (or explicitly supports current process)	31	15	16	Pppery, Hey man im Josh*, Daniel, asilvering*, Vanamonde*, Alpha3031, Chaotic Enby, Mach61, Miniapolis*, Yngvadottir, Bluethricecreamman, Drmies*, Legotkm*, Lectonar*, LilianaUwu, Cullen328*, BusterD*, Lepricavark, Dmacks*, Trangabellam, Thyduulf*, Jpxg*, Giantsnowman* (opposes, unclear if meant process), Perfect4th, Girth Summit*, Travellers and Tinkers, gnangarra, Theknightwho, Tazerdadog (needs tweaks but explicitly support), Super Goku V, RoySmith*, ZippyBonzo (don't believe needs recall)
Opposes Petition; Expresses dissatisfaction with some part of current process (or explicitly supports an alternative)	12	8	4	Elli* (duration), SuperMarioMan* (comments at AN + WT:AR, duration), Useight* (brutality), Tryptofish, Floquenbeam* (duration), Sandstein* (no consensus), FollyMox (no oppose), Alexandermcnabb (process won’t work), Kusma*, Hammersoft*, Robertsky*, Remsense
Opposes recall processes generally	4	3	1	Peacemaker67*, Doug Weller*, SWATJester*, Gnangarra
Could not determine or Neutral	8	0	8	voorts, Maddy, QoH, FathomsBelow (duration concerns), Neo Purgatorio (nom concerns), CNC, Steel1943, Star Mississippi* (post-Mariewan concerns, but issues w/ process), Sir Kenneth Kho

Notes:

• An asterisk (*) denotes admin.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment of their position in this discussion (I tried to look for only explicit/express language to categorize opposes and noted reasons or other notes where applicable), please feel free to move yourself around and update the table accordingly. I hope people find value in this and it sheds some light on where supports and opposes are coming from.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say my expressed position would fall into your "opposes Petition; expresses dissatisfaction with some part of current process" category. Remsense ‥ 论 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, updated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I plan to dig into people's discussion sentiments to classify them as 1) support this recall process, oppose this AR; 2) support some recall process, oppose this specific one; 3) oppose recall process generally; 4) could not determine. (note: those who support both the recall generally AND this specific AR are assumed to align w/ those that have signed the petition). But that's a longer task which I don't have time for at the moment. Now done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Blue shield vibes. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WPO hasten the day vibes. (you're right, these baseless aspersions are fun) Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean? I'm genuinely confused. Google keeps suggesting an insurance company. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss I don't know how well this will translate to Canadian, it's a reference to the idea of the thin blue line and the blue wall of silence. (Specifically the second one) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the data, Swatjester, I find it useful. I'm not sure if I will participate in this discussion. I have some question about how Graham87 has handled his admin duties but I'm not sure that this forum is an effective way of influencing that aspect of his work. There is also a feeling of a pile-on here. Maybe we should bring back RFC/U. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well the petition signers can run for adminship and maybe help with the shortage.©Geni (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for data, it's interesting to see. Based on update as of "~1am EST on 10/31", it's very telling that 80% appear to support the admin retaining adminship, while 20% theretically oppose. If we are to base this sample of responses to an RRfA, then it could be extrapolated that the admin would easily retain adminship (with >60% support). If not obvious this means that if the petition receives 25 signatures, going through a re-RRfA might well be pointless bureaucracy, but otherwise could be confirmation that the process works as intended. If anything it should be considered as a good thing that an admin has very recently retained the trust of the community, when it has been in doubt, so is best not shied away from if there has been this doubt by a minority of editors. I also imagine in the near future these recall petitions will be semi-regular, while the desired results at RRfA will be very limited, which is also no doubt part of the intended process. CNC (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It might speak to the process working as intended, but if so it strongly suggests that the intent was harmful and malicious. To my eyes, this ratio pretty strongly indicates there is consensus against bringing Graham to an RRFA -- and a process that can disregard that consensus simply by hitting an arbitrary magic number of signatures (which require no actual evidence or justification) is abjectly wrong, and subject to abuse -- exactly like people warned about when this process was being considered. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Functionally, this can be seen as similar to an AfD, where one person can nominate an article for discussion even if the consensus would clearly be against bringing the article to AfD. What happens then is that the AfD (or, in this case, the RRfA) is usually pretty much a snow keep. But the evaluation of consensus happens in the AfD/RRfA/etc., not while evaluating whether to bring the article there to begin with. (As a disclaimer, I informally opposed the petition, but support the idea of a tweaked recall process) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The AfD analogy has some limitations. The result of an AfD nomination that results in a SNOW keep is simply a note about the past AfD on the article talk page. Here, the result instead is a human being getting put through a lengthy and dispiriting process even though community consensus turned out to be against doing that to the person. In that regard, I think Swatjester makes an astute criticism: we are seeing a process get underway, while also seeing that it is obvious that community consensus is that the process, in this specific case, is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of my position. My concern was not about the duration but about the brutality. People putting signatures on a recall petition that's open for thirty days? Fine. People bashing other people for thirty days? Not great. Signing your name is one thing. Saying "It's about time" or what-have-you is another thing. Let's be nice to people, even when desysopping them, because they're people. I mentioned the length in my original comment not because I thought it was too long - but because I thought it was people being mean for too long. Useight (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has endorsed the petition, I felt compelled to defend my position instead of just signing it because several of the users in the discussion section below were demanding evidence. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. Completely understandable. The way things have shaken out so far have pretty much obligated new participants to come in that way. It hasn't been conducive to the proposition that someone simply sign their name (and presumably be able to explain their position in the RRFA if it happened). Useight (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for getting it wrong, I've updated the reasoning on yours from duration to brutality (though the reasons weren't really intended to be part of the analysis, more so I didn't lose my place when counting, I can probably just remove them if people find them unhelpful or inaccurate) -- in any event, please let me know if you feel the categorization is incorrect. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that analysis is better done after the petition is over. If there is a concern that the ongoing discussion is generating an undue amount of contention, performing a real-time analysis is drawing out that discussion further by expanding it. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. For one thing, this isn't really "analysis" in the sense of anything subjective; it's simply categorizing people's expressed positions. For another, the concern isn't about *all* discussion generating undue contention, but rather that which is about nitpicking apart Graham87's actions (something this data does not attempt to do); nor does it notably "expand" the discussion by moving it *off* of the main petition page and into a much less active talk page. If y'all wanted to stifle discussion at this stage, y'all shouldn't have included a discussion section in the format. But what is of immense value is the ability to build a picture as to consensus *against* this process and *against* this petition, given the concerns that have been raised in numerous locations. And having that in real-time, rather than a one-and-done at the end of a month, makes it easier to show just how remarkably quickly the community has reached such a consensus.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I stated my personal opinion, so there's no "y'all". The point of the petition is to provide a threshold that needs to be passed to trigger the re-request for adminship process to start, sort of like seconding a motion before a full vote. Analysing it like a support/oppose vote before another support/oppose vote is repetitive, and for those concerned about the ongoing discussion being divisive, it's dragging it out. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The y'all (southern for "you all") is directed collectively at those who participated in the development of the Phase II process including specifically in the discussion around whether the petition should have a discussion section, which you participated in but raised no concerns about discussion at the time (and the closer specifically noted the options that disallowed discussion received "significant opposition"). I understand your argument, I just find it completely unconvincing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure I have been put in the right place. Indeed I oppose desysopping Graham87, but I don't think I said that, and I believe such opposition should not be stated on a recall petition. I tried to express my opposition to the presence of a discussion section and to the presence of "oppose votes"; I was planning to voice my opposition to a desysop for Graham87 only when the RRFA has been started. —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like you are in the right place. I have you listed as dissatisfied with or opposing some portion of the current process (based on I oppose this process; and I was interpreting comments that oppose this process as inherently opposing a petition based on said process. If you're confirming here you oppose desysopping Graham, then you're currently in the correct category. If you feel that's incorrect, please let me know which one I should move you to (or Neutral/Cannot Determine if none apply). In any event, this data above holds no weight, it's simply a window into how this discussion is shaking out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  My position may be a bit confusing. I am ok with having a recall process (although I think desysopping people who need to be desysopped was already reasonably easy, while sysopping people who need to be sysopped is unreasonably hard, so admin recall was not something that urgently needed introducing). I am opposed to having four weeks of drama before the RRFA even starts, so I do not think there should be so much discussion. I think none of the "oppose" votes opposing the petition or process should even be there (I am opposed to the very existence of the "discussion" section that I posted in): either the petition hits the quorum of supporters and a RRFA will be started, or not. I plan to oppose desysopping Graham87 when that question is asked, but I do not think I should say that in the context of the recall petition, which just asks for a show of hands of all the people who want to start a RRFA in order to see whether that number exceeds the quorum. I would very much prefer it if people just added their signature if they believe a RRFA should be started and otherwise ignored the petition. —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the idea that we should let claims (that the consensus is are exaggerated) go unchallenged like that is so alien to the way the English Wikipedia discussion process normally works that there's no way any process relying on it could possibly succeed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The English Wikipedia discussion processes tend to degenerate into an almost completely unstructured free-for-all and are terrible at providing due process. If the recall process can't be done in a way providing due process, we are better off leaving all desysoppings to ArbCom. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  More or less where I stand at the moment as well, though I'm content to be in the section of the table I've been placed in. I presently think this petition was both an unnecessarily cruel thing to do and a terrible strategic blunder. But maybe I'll be proven wrong on that last one; since en-wiki tends to kneejerk hard against change of any kind, perhaps it's for the best that we will have gotten all those feelings out on a candidate with no reasonable chance of being desysopped, rather than on one who ought to have been. -- asilvering (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester Please put me at "Opposes Petition; Expresses dissatisfaction with some part of current process (or explicitly supports an alternative)" in your classifications as I had opened Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Grandfather_clause?. Thanks. However, I state that I did not explicitly put "oppose" in my comments. My dissatisfaction arose primarily from who started the petition and when it started. Like Kusma, I do intend to state my opposition to desysopping Graham87 if the recall actually starts. – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated, thanks and apologies for any errors.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• As all contributors are equal this table should be removed, Gnangarra 10:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about it even remotely suggests that contributors are not equal. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

then why identify them if nots to devalue the opinion of admins Gnangarra 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Because some editors were making comments about which side admins were supporting and which side non-admin editors were supporting, based on guesses. Admins and non-admins have equal rights here, but some commenters were implying biases in one group or the other. Having the data at hand makes it easier to sort through those claims Donald Albury 15:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Former admins should be counted as "admins." Also, I'm not really digging having a scorecard during the process. The data analysis is useful, but I think it'd be better as a retrospective than a play-by-play. Increases the temperature, and the amount of side-chatter (e.g. this message). Levivich (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why I am a contributor first, foremost, always have been always will be Admins are nothing special! Gnangarra 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?

Wikipedia:Administrator recall has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CNC (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• This is not an RFC on the Recall process per se but rather an RFC on the length, dont waste your time there because do not support recall process isnt an option. Gnangarra 08:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thirty days is too long, and I said as much. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Admin recall has another RfC

RfC regarding the process at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?. Coffee and donuts will be served. Pets welcome Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens now?

... that we've broken the 25-signature threshold? There was a bit of discussion about it on my talk page (before the number of signers increased), but the actual policy as it is currently worded is fairly unambiguous that this petition should last for 30 days, no matter what. At this point I would like to start the RRFA as soon as possible but having the recall and the RRFA going on at the same time would be ... more than a little ridiculous, IMO. Graham87 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the actual policy is unambiguous. The original intent was what you described (>=25 signatures within 30 days, not >25 signatures for 30 days), and it makes more sense logically as well.

Also might be worth discussing this at WP:BN, where I started a thread to discuss crat involvement in this. Soni (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like a reasonable (and fair) reading of the policy is that you can open the RRFA immediately if you want to, or wait for up to 29 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes from when the petiton was certified. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 09:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually think they can wait for up to 29 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes from when the petition was closed (which does not have to be the instant it reaches 25 signatures) plus a reasonable amount of time as determined by a 'crat. An even fairer reading would be that the clock starts when the admin becomes aware the petition has crossed the threshold. The point of them being aware to be taken as the timestamp of either:

• Their clearly acknowledging the successful petition, or
• If they don't acknowledge within a reasonable period, of their first edit after they could reasonably have been aware. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That is also my reading of it. You can choose to do the RRFA now or wait until it's closed I guess in the hope that it will end with less than 25 signatures (i.e. editors will remove their signature). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I read it as the 30 day clock to do the RRFA starts from when the recall petition is closed which will be 30 days after it was opened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 The petition has been closed (accidentally twice, once by me and then @Serial Number 54129) after some discussion at the WP:BN thread. It should be safe to RRFA I think. Soni (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that Soni, I got no e/c alert, but yours was a better close, using a proper template?! Cool. But, @Hey man i'm josh, just fyi, but the closes (both of them!) were based on the discussion at WP:BN. SerialNumber54129 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (@Hey man im josh, third time lucky...)

(Failed ping) @Serial Number 54129, @Graham87, I see now why this was believed, and I apologize for missing it. There's been a lot of talk going on, so I clearly missed this bit, I'm self reverting. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How many times can i possibly get a simple string of four short words wrong! *facepalm* SerialNumber54129 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Requesting closure of Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 → Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#Early closure

See also discussion over at recall talk also, should have linked it earlier. CNC (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Lemme keep this short y'all: I fucked up with good intentions. Sorry!!! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I didn't actually use any template, just copied the CSS/formatting for successful RFAs and swapped every mention of RFA to recall related stuff. So it looks identical to a subst-ed template (which I assume will be created soon). Feel free to revert or re-format to your preferred versions, there've been lots of edits in a short time and I don't really mind which version gets used. Soni (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)