Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?

RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On the numbers, this is 38–42–9 after assigning second-choice !votes. That does leave us with the potential of a consensus for "something other than the status quo", but to determine that, we have to look at the quality of the arguments. Much support for B was based on assumptions about how the 30-day window would affect admins. While this RfC was open, two petitions met their threshold: Graham87's, after 10 days, leading to a desysop by withdrawn re-RfA; and Fastily's, after 11 days, leading to a desysop by resignation under a cloud. This sort of information would have been crucial for editors reaching an informed decision about how to vote here, but instead many !votes were cast on a speculative basis. There were actually only 14 !votes cast after Fastily's resignation. If we were to go based only on them, this would be a clear consensus to retain the 30-day window (8–2–3 after second choices). So I find no consensus, with the note that this would be an outright win for the status quo if only counting non-speculative !votes.

Closer's note: This all lends credence to the sentiment, expressed by a number of !voters, that this RfC was opened too early and with too little preparation. That is not to fault its creator entirely; anyone reading this close more than a few months in the future will likely not understand the minor mass hysteria that gripped our community, and particularly its admin corps, in the weeks following the adoption of admin recall. Inasmuch as the RfC was meant to provide a centralized way to air grievances, it succeeded at that. I will note in closing that, if I had only counted non-admin !votes, this would have been 30–20–9 even counting speculative !votes, or 7–2–0 discounting them. Obviously it's not my place as closer to say who was substantively right here, but I would suggest to my fellow admins that this is a fucking bad look. There should not be this much of a disconnect between us and the community we serve as to the best ways to hold us accountable. My recommendation, based on the clearly diverging priorities seen in this RfC, is for more dialogue between admins and non-admins, hearing one another's perspectives on adminship. Because the best way to avoid putting admins through any length of recall petition is for them to be in touch with what the community wants from admins. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

---

To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?

• Option A: Keep the petition period the same (30 days)
• Option B: Change the petition period to 7 days
• Option C: Some other time period (like 14 or 15 days?) that's longer than a week but shorter than a month.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Edited to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL CNC (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Next time, please wait more than a few minutes before editing other people's comments. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note - This RFC was initially started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Shorten_the_recall_petition_period? before being moved to this page by WhatamIdoing. Soni (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• B. Geez, an RFA is bad enough. If there aren't enough editors who jump on an admin recall within a week, meaning there is a strong community opinion that the specific recall has to happen, then it's not worth it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The RFC question should be neutral, personal comments can go together with a !vote. Where is the RFCBefore? Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have much experience with RfCs. What did I do wrong? Does this change solve your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC), edited 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Probably need to replace the following excerpt:

  "I think a community recall process is useful but it's clear to me that many people in the current recall petition think that 30 days is way too long for this part of the process, so I think it's worth formally seeing if this has support."

  ...with something like:

  "I propose to change the length of time the recall is open, and here are some potential options:"

  ...or something like that. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) WP:RFCNEUTRAL is sometimes interpreted to mean that the transcluded part of an RfC should not have statements like it's clear to me that many people in the current recall petition think that 30 days is way too long. Sdkb ^talk 19:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. The RFCbefore should be a link to the relevant discussion where this potential change was discussed before the RFC, presumably the current recall petition. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to avoid potentially canvassing as it an ongoing discussion. But I do think my statement is an accurate reflection of what is going on over at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 and that it is neutral to simply describe that consensus. Regardless, I can rephrase things if that makes it less problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I like option B, because that's how long an RfA would be. While other people are clearly upset with other parts of the process, I would like to keep this RfC limited to the length of the petition period. Feel free to start your own RfC on other aspects of desired. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my support for option B, regardless of recent events. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• This RFC is significantly premature. There is a large amount of RFC before currently happening at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Avoiding a long month of drama, including discussion of petition periods. Rough consensus there is to wait until after the dust settles on the first recall petition (and any subsequent re-RFA) and use that time to workshop a well-crafted RFC to address all the issues. I strongly encourage Clovermoss to withdraw this and contribute there. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that's where it is. Selfstudier (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I only started this because I was asked to. In any case, this is already way more well-advertised than that discussion is, because I haven't even heard of it yet. I posted to CENT and AN already. I don't think it's necessarily premature when dozens of people clearly want something to change. I don't think waiting a few days would make them suddenly change their minds. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, it is a proper RFCBefore. Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I didn't participate in any part of the consensus forming to create this new process, so I disagree about withdrawing this discussion. In addition, it seems that the current active recall petition is turning into a cluster, so I think this RFC is quite warranted and not premature at all. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess its just that usually, the policy page is the last step, not the first :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this whole implementation was probably a mess. Either way though, that currently-active recall ... since it seems there is no type of restrictions on how editors can comment in it, in the current state of the recall petition, I gotta give the admin under recall some props because if I had to deal with a basically uncensored recall like that, I'd just turn in my tools to shut the recall down and then think if I want to still edit on Wikipedia after that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given this isn't being withdrawn as premature: Option A until after the first petition (and any subsequent RRFA) has concluded, at which point we should have a sober debrief without any knee-jerk proposals that consider everything in totality, including but not limited to duration. I also endorse Levivich's comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Too soon. I think we need more 'before' discussion before running RfCs on changing the policy/procedure, and that we should wait until at least the signature phase ends. - Donald Albury 20:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. The recall petition being longer than the potential WP:RRfA in question is illogical, so reducing the time-frame to 7 days makes the most sense here in line with RfA time-frame. Fundamentally, if there aren't 25+ editors who have serious issues with an admin within the time-span of a week, there is no good reason to be taking them to RfA. I admittedly haven't read all of the RFCBEFORE, but I have seen recall in action and at present its far from ideal. Apologies to Clovermoss for editing RfC, won't happen again. CNC (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B For starters, the idea lab discussion is multifaceted and not exclusive of this discussion. While the idea lab may ultimately come up with a better overall solution to RECALL, the time aspect is an obvious issue. We don't have to be bureaucratic and wait for the idea lab discussion to end. We can shorten the time that a petition runs, and still be thinking about ways to rework the process.
  On the merits, we have to remember the human dimension: admins are people. Being in the lurch for an entire month is an enormous stress on a person. For me, my RfA was the single most stressful week of my life--even more so than the bar exam! I can't imagine being at RECALL for an entire month, and then also having to re-RfA. If you can't collect 25 signatures in a week, then there's no way you're gonna get 40%+ of the community to oppose a re-RfA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B seems reasonable per length-based reasons I gave when this first came up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. Would also support a shorter timeframe of 24-72 hours. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reaffirming - this remains my opinion. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• B if we're keeping a limit of 25 for a petition, although I do find it a bit funny that the community is reneging on a consensus established less than 2 months ago. Mach61 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • C, ~2 weeks. Turns out that getting to 25 is a bit harder in practice than I thought. The case of Graham87 didn't move me much; "admin directly undermines his pledge to change behavior while petition is open" is not a scenario that can really be planned for. But "more evidence of past misconduct is found" is a possibility that should be accounted for, and it happened with Fastily's petition, after one week. Mach61 20:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option C - 14 days. I believe 7 days is quite short, and risks becoming a huge furore each time a new petition is started. 14 days feels jsut right, editors should be able to find the problems and report them without canvassing or similar. My second preference is B, and third is A. I am explicitly against a no consensus outcome. Soni (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  After the last 2 petitions and 1 RRFA, I believe in Option C (14 days) > Option A (30 days) > Option B (7 days).

  I believe that even if we no-consensus, we should be able to bundle this with reworkshop, but I'd still rather not no-consensus. Soni (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Premature - it hasn't even been 7 days since the first petition was started. How can any of us know whether 7 days or 15 or 30 is the right amount of time, since so far we've had zero petitions of any of those durations? There are also other factors to consider, such as whether the number of signatures should be reduced if the time frame is reduced, since the signature threshold and timing were discussed together, at length, in Phase 2 at WP:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Initiation procedure. Similarly, whether the "cooling-off period" should be reduced if the petition duration is reduced. We don't have enough data to make a decision about this yet. Things we should learn before deciding include: whether (or how often) people add or remove their signatures during the petition period, to what extent discussion results in people adding/removing their signatures, whether people will wait until the last day to sign, how often people start new petitions, and whether different petitions all end up looking the same or different (in terms of temperature, outcome, who signs them, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  A - Now that the first petition reached the threshold in the second week, I hope everyone has learned why B is a bad idea, and why voting on this so soon was a bad idea. Can we all now be patient and wait to reform this new system until we've had a chance to see how it actually works? Levivich (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  C second choice. I was all "find a consensus" in Phase 2, I should say the same now. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• B, if we're voting on this now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Premature agree with Thryduulf and Levivich. We don't know enough yet to make a determination on the length. Some editors think the first one is unwarranted (for various reasons), and this RfC just seems like a reactive measure based on those sentiments. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• A or extend to a year, with rolling petitions like dewiki, alternatively abolish recall. The Graham87 recall petition is a mess because of back and forth arguing by supporters, which has no place on the petition page at all. Either the petition hits the quorum (and then we can have the seven day RfA-like bloodbath if we must) or it does not. A short period just makes the admin recall process usable only for cases that would have been handled by ArbCom anyway. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. 30 days was a logical choice when rolling petitions were on the table, but once they were overwhelmingly rejected, a month-long process made considerably less sense. One week is more than enough to gauge community sentiment, and it will make for a much less painful process for everyone involved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• While I can certainly understand why folx see this as premature, I still believe we should address the issue sooner rather than later. 30 days is too long when you consider the person on the other end of the screen — thirty days of what will always be a negative experience irrespective of the merits of the recall, followed by potentially seven more days of the near-universally agreed upon "most stressful week on-wiki" is just unfair. I'm torn between option B (a week may well be a little too short to adaquately capture a good percentage of community feedback) and option C (on the other hand, anything more than 15 days starts to feel excessive again). If pressed I'd opt for shorter though, so option B. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B or C (15 days), 30 days is way too much. Still in favor of limiting the amount of discussion, although that will likely be a separate follow-up RfC. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to A or C (15 days) following how the first two recall petitions went in practice. One week is not enough for relevant evidence to be brought up, and, while long-winded threaded discussion should still be limited, there should be a way to bring up additional evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• B. On the one hand, I agree with editors that this RfC is premature; we really should wait with any proposals to change this thing until the first run of it is completely over. On the other hand, I've been saying for as long as this recall process has been discussed that the "consensus" in favor of enacting it has been egregiously rushed through. So there's a certain justice in chopping away at it this early. And on my third hand (hey, I'm actually a fish, so I can claim anything about my anatomical structure), I oppose the whole thing anyway, so anything that chips away from it is good with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm reaffirming my opinion above, as unchanged, even after the sudden change in affairs at the first petition page (Graham's). I think I'm going to completely change my view of that particular case, but this doesn't change my view of this RfC question. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• B. The period of angst for the admin should match the length of RfA (and the default length of deletion discussions) in order to give adequate time for those who might wish to support to discover the petition and decide whether to sign it. It seems perverse to have a longer period for considering whether to require a new RfA than for considering whether to support one, and it's cruel and unusual punishment, to borrow a phrase. The mention in this discussion of signatories having the option to withdraw their signatures is the first such mention I've seen. I admit I don't think I participated in the discussions of this recall proposal; I've supported one or two preceding proposals, but I have a dim memory of looking and finding this one so complex that I didn't understand the options on the table well enough to vote in the then open RfC; and I also admit I haven't read all the comments on the current petition page in response to those of us registering our dissent. But there isn't even any provision made for the admin to make points in their defence; 30 days of this is more than 4 times as bad as 7 days of RfA responding to a multitude of questions while obeying the unofficial guidance not to respond to "Oppose" !votes. The community has in my view experimentally established that the process is flawed in respect to the petition period length. It shouldn't require huge amounts of bureaucracy to learn from this, just as if the community has lost trust in an admin it shouldn't require 30 days to get 25 signatures to a proposal to force a reconfirmation discussion, especially with bludgeoning of dissenters. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B or C (suggest 10 days). Not opposed to admin recall in principle, but the current set-up feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinged to confirm my comment; I stand by my initial thought that 10 days is sufficient to allow all truly interested parties to participate. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• C>B>A I've laid out my opinion at several pages (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Initiation_procedure being the most pertinent). In short, a month is uncomfortably long and allows petitions to stagnate. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think two weeks is better per Closed Limelike Curves below, buf still consider one month painfully long for the admin. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC) I think the Graham87 petition has shown how some people won't sign unless something egregious is done while the community is watching. Sincerely, Dilettante

• Premature per Levivich; Option A if nothing else. Trout on toast dinner for Clovermoss. SerialNumber54129 23:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• B with a caveat -- not explicitly 7 days, but "whatever duration RFA is" at the time. But prefer abolish recall as the better option. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option B per my comments here. I support having a recall process, but not as it is currently setting up. This is one of a few changes I think are needed, and probably the most major. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. Not premature – there is no reason problems must exist for a period of time before we are allowed to solve them. I am torn on whether this should happen retroactively or not. It feels unfair to put someone through more petition hell; it feels unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak. I think I land on changing the rules to help the players (i.e. apply retroactively), but I am open to being convinced otherwise. (It now occurs to me that this discussion will probably wrap up after the current petition ends, and I doubt a new one will be opened in that time. Hopefully this is a purely academic discussion, but I spent too long agonizing about it to not include it in this post.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  there is no reason problems must exist for a period of time before we are allowed to solve them it's not about being allowed to solve them, but about having enough knowledge to know what the problems actually are and what alternatives will solve them. The issue most people have is not so much the length of time of the petition but the nature of the petition, and only changing the time will not solve that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't need anything more than having gone through a week-long RfA to know that a month in the spotlight is too long, and that a week is plenty of petition scrutiny. And at VPI there appears to be pretty strong consensus that the length is at least part of the problem – so I support fixing it now. YMMV, of course. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• A only because this should wait a bit and see how the policy works, going by one troublesome instance is not the proper basis for a decision on just one aspect of it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Think it through. If you tell people they've got to get 25 signatures in 7 days, then they will plan. They will draw up draft petitions in userspace, gather support and evidence and diffs, and then transclude when they're good and ready. The scrutiny will take just as long but the target won't be aware of it or have the right of reply.
  There's no way to have community recall without longwinded community scrutiny of sysops.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  S Marshall, the target doesn't have an explicit right of reply in the petition process as it now is. The purpose of the Discussion section is undefined, and there is neither a questions nor an oppose section. The pushback has in large part been occasioned by the presence of discussion in itself, and the current target was given well-intentioned advice to ignore the petition. Whereas when there isn't a petition, including if one is being drafted, the potential target has the same opportunity and obligations under ADMINACCT of any admin to respond to expressed concerns about their conduct. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The target does seem to have been able to reply, though! It's all happened with his knowledge and with plenty of input from him.

  This proposal would end that. 25 signatures in 7 days is an extraordinary requirement, considering we don't get that much engagement even with Arbcom cases. A 7-day process requiring 25 signatures reduces the odds of success to near-zero, which I'm sure is why nervous sysops are rushing to support it. Initiators will respond by preparing their petitions privately or off-wiki, canvassing support privately or off-wiki, gathering diffs privately or off-wiki, to enhance their chances of success.

  Whatever the rules are, people will game them. Obviously, there are people who'll flock to all or most recall RfAs !voting support; equally obviously, people dislike this process are going to brigade every single reconfirmation RfA opposing the desysopping and complaining that we shouldn't have community de-adminship at all. We need to set the rules so they're harder to game. Allowing more time for discussion and greater transparency is a key part of that.—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Would it be worse for them to be unaware though, if people think the duration that they're aware of it is what is causing them stress? I do think being able to address issues might be helpful if they're made aware, but that doesn't necessarily need to be part of the formal recall process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why one of the suggestions in the meaningful discussion is for the petitioner to present a short statement of why they are raising the petition and the admin to get a similarly-sized reply (if they choose), but everyone else limited to either just a signature or a signature plus a few words. Discussion on the talk page would be permitted but maybe restricted to keep decorum, other venues like the admin's talk page would not be restricted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That suggestion would displace the discussion about open recall petitions to other venues. It would not prevent the discussion from happening.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The aim is not to prevent discussion completely, but to dissuade it and make it less prominent. It would almost certainly achieve the latter and the former is certainly possible. I don't know yet whether I support that idea (we don't have anywhere near enough information to make that decision, and cannot before at least one petition has concluded), but it is something that is worth considering. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh well. If it takes you more than 5 minutes to consider it, then knock yourself out. Reflect about which off-wiki sites will host the discussions you want to dissuade and conceal. Take your time.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• B as the best of the options, noting that with all these !votes it is too late to shelve this RfC. Zero^talk 00:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• A I agree with others that changing this is premature. It also doesn't seem like the right lever to pull. If discussion is the problem, then require that the petition contain nothing but signatures and a particular paragraph identifying it as such a petition. I'd also like to suggest that if the time is shortened, the number of signatures required should be reduced as well to avoid neutering the mechanism; these can't really be decided independently. McYeee (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not unusual for an RfA to have more than a hundred participants in a seven day timeframe. If there aren't enough signatures in 7 days, a brand new RfA is likely to be pointless anyways. I honestly think this is the best compromise to keep almost everyone happy (keep the recall process but also make it less cruel). I'm one of the people that actually supported the recall process being implemented in its current form. I supported a month because other options like a year sounded too cruel. I also didn't expect a petition in itself to be so dramatic. I thought people would save all the arguing for an actual RfA if things progressed to that point. People are allowed to change their minds instead of just sitting there watching everything happen. I try to be someone that acts if I think I can do something to help, even if my intentions don't always shine through. Not all of this is directed at you personally by the way, I just figured I'd respond since this argument has been echoed a few times. If my counterargument isn't convincing then so be it. Sometimes reasonable people disagree with each other. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC), edited 01:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is exactly what is being discussed at VPI and why you should have done some discussion beforehand rather than launching an incompletely thought out RFC. Your problem is not with the time but with the discussion being "dramatic". Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand my perspective here. As for launching an incompletely thought out RFC, that's very much your opinion. I think before I act and I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think this was worth doing. I think we're not likely to convince each other at this point so maybe we can just agree to disagree? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fully-thought out RFCs don't get launched without RFC before, duplicate an ongoing pre-RFC discussion, or need non-trivial edits after launching. I'll grant you that it is theoretically not absolutely impossible that all the problems with a process can be correctly and fully identified, and workable solutions that will actually fix those problems without worse unintended consequences fully developed when the first instance of that process is less than a quarter of the way through, but it is at the very least extremely improbable. If you wish to continue asserting that, despite all of this, the RFC isn't premature then we aren't going to be able to have a rational and objective discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very inexperienced with RfCs, that doesn't mean I can't have fully thought out my actions. As far as I can tell, I followed WP:RFCST. If you want to give me open feedback on how the process is supposed to work that isn't spelt out in black and white, do it on my talk page, but I don't think it's fair to imply my actions as reckless. As I already said, I was not aware of the idea lab discussion. I'm not the only one who found it difficult to find, it obviously wasn't well publicized. But changing one small thing that is obviously causing issues now doesn't mean people can't discuss other options. One of the main pieces of advice that I've read about RfCs is to be simple and not make them complicated. So it's honestly a shock to me that you seem to prefer the latter. Why?

  As for my inexperience with RfCs, I'm really not kidding: there's this and this. Not the best track record but as always, I'm willing to learn. But those two experiences made me feel like maybe the intricacies of RfCs aren't for me, kind of like how I've never closed a discussion. It's why I even suggested someone other than me start the RfC! Because I'm not the best at these things! But I feel obligated to act when my conscience screams at me and I figured it was worth a try after thinking about what BusterD said. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Requests for Adminship are much better advertised than these petitions, so it's not surprising they get more engagement. If the goal is to prevent cruelty on those pages, I see no advantage of the proposal in the RfC over the proposal to make the petition a form letter along the lines of "The undersigned request an RRfA. This page may be edited only to add signatures to this list and remove vandalism." McYeee (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The first petition is much higher profile than petitions are intended to be. In the first 24 hours the page was edited by 59 separate users, only 7 of whom supported. After 6 days the petition still only has 12 supporters. All 12 supporters meet the extended confirmed threshold for signing the petition, but not all the commenters do (e.g. one IP editor commented in the first 24 hours). Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The number of distinct editors doesn't seem particularly meaningful unless we figure out how many of them meet the extended-confirmed threshold. McYeee (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @McYeee Of the 59 users who edited the current petition within the first 24 hours, all but one of them (the IP editor) was extended confirmed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. This makes it clear to me that some change is needed. I'm just still not sure what change is needed. McYeee (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  some change is needed. I'm just still not sure what change is needed I'm in exactly the same boat, which is why it's such a shame that this RFC was launched without any attempts at workshopping. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe the guide at Wikipedia:Requests for comment should explain this if you want people to do it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process does explain this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't say anything about workshops and I believed the threshold for an RfC was already met when I read that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, seeing that the process has resulted in two desysoppings, the process seems to be working as intended. McYeee (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• B for the excellent reasons articulated by CaptainEek. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. Longer than 7 days is cruel to the subject of the RRFA. The point of RFA reform was to reduce toxicity, not increase it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since there is a minority viewpoint below that opinions in this RFC before a certain date are invalid, I am reaffirming my statement. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• B but the existing recall process will still be terrible. I'm not against any form of recall, I'm just strongly opposed to this form of recall, and anything that mitigates against this otherwise unmitigated disaster is good in my view, including reducing the timeframe. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B to match RFA, as the recipient of the curren admin recall. Take my !vote as you will. Graham87 (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B while I'd prefer 10 days, 7 is acceptable. As several editors have hinted at a desire to do away with recall altogether, I will raise my voice in strong opposition to any such notion. This community is frustratingly allergic to change, often to its own detriment. We've had one recall petition that got off to a shaky start, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands that new processes are usually a little rough at first. Stop overreacting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  A in light of further developments, this RfC was premature. We should stick with the status quo. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• B Seems fair to match to the RfA proccess, though I would be willing to go even shorter, perhaps 5 days. Highly in favor of the process of a whole, give it some time to shake out bugs.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B or C (possible suggestion of 14 days). The admin recall process really doesn't have to drag everyone into a flaming train that destroys us from the inside out in 1 month. Mox Eden (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• This is completely premature and a week for 25 signatures is absurd. How are editors supposed to be aware of these petitions if they're only open for a week without being canvassed to it? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • RfAs regularly get 200 votes in a week without people being canvassed. Because they're advertised properly (i.e. through watchlist notices). Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    Just between CENT and AN, there's already more than 25 people commenting here in less than 24 hours. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah but recall petitions aren't at VPP or on CENT, so not really comparable. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    The recall petition was posted at AN, and maybe they should be posted on CENT as a general rule? RfAs pop up there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• option D Oppose Recall this is just a formun to bash admins WP:POINT, an admin that goes rogue can be dealt with through ANI. Obviously not fair process, when you cant oppose the process just its length. This was always going to be ridiculous unhinged process Gnangarra 07:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B My official position is that we should debrief before going off half-cocked on RFCs. But this one seems pretty clear cut. BusterD (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @BusterD: If you ever want to chip in at my talk page about RfCs, I'd appreciate it. I really don't think they're my forté. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• These petitions may not be created for a year after a failed one. That's fine for a month-long discussion (1/12), but it would make a week-long discussion inappropriately effective (1 week affecting 52 others). We've copied an idea from an established dewiki process but failed to actually implement rolling petitions for every administrator, where having a petition for re-adminship is nothing special and mostly the existence of a dedicated page for negative feedback, and where RRFAs are created with far less drama when more than 25 people voice their unhappiness in a month or 50 in six months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Other current recall rules like An editor can sign no more than five active petitions are also built on the "a petition will be open for a long period of time, at least a month" idea. Shortening the duration while leaving all other parameters intact may be a net positive but won't come without unexpected downsides. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's fine for a month-long discussion (1/12), but it would make a week-long discussion inappropriately effective: I happen to disagree. I don't see this an unexpected downside but a safeguard. As for dewiki, the RfC made it pretty clear that we don't want to copy them in the rolling process. It's only natural to take inspiration from other communities with similar processes but things don't have to be an exact copy. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  A safeguard against... having a page where people can request a re-RfA? Perhaps having such a page is only an issue because there's currently one instead of 839. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  A safeguard against the human cost of having a petition open for a month. Only having to go through that once a year seems like it might be reassuring to some. I think the cost outweighs the benefits... I don't think we really need more petitions that are a month long to realize that while this idea may be fine in theory, but in practice it's extremely messy and stressful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• A, because this is premature. We haven't had a single petition concluded yet (successfully or unsuccessfully), nor have we had one open even for seven days. -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• C. A month seems too long, while a week can go by before people notice, so a fortnight is about right. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• B Although I do want to say I don't like the whole process and think it's the most un-Wikipedian thing I've ever seen. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree with the people who say that this RfC is premature because we haven't learned enough from the first petition. We have learned that a weak petition with no chance of leading to a successful desysoping can get 12 signatories with 20+ days to go, a direct empirical rebuttal to the idea 25 signatories over a month is an effective filter Mach61 05:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• C. 14. Since it was pointed out that that's longer than a week but shorter than a month, seems like the obvious choice. 7 days... too short. 25 is a big number. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• B, as someone heavily involved in the RfCs that created admin recall and supported the shortest petition periods proposed back then. Toadspike [Talk] 12:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• B > C. B if the recall is being advertised somewhere so anyone who wishes to partake in the recall has adequate oppurtunity to learn about the recall in-progress. Otherwise, C (14/15 days) if not being advertised. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @CX Zoom: what counts as advertised to you? All recall petitions are transcluded onto Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current, for example. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Advertised in the sense that RfAs are advertised. Let's say, I think that User:X shouldn't be an admin, but never really pursued that on my own. So, I would need to know if/when someone starts a recall petition on User:X without me having to watch WP:RECALL. I don't really see any negative side to it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That position makes sense, I just wanted to clarify what exactly you meant. Thanks for doing so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Note that another way of being notified would be to watch the talk page of the admin whom you consider should not have the rights. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You could simply watchlist the non-existing recall subpage. For example, click here to be notified in case a petition is started for me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Premature We should let the process play out to see what changes are necessary, or desirable. That said, I supported a 7 day period when these procedures were discussed and still agree with that length of time a petition can be opened (and I could be amenable to an even shorter period). --Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• B - keeping it open for a month is unfair on the admin, and a week should be enough. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support B, oppose anything longer. Not necessarily opposed to shorter. Thirty days sounded reasonable when the process was still at WP:RFA2024, but the Graham87 petition shows that in practice, it's too long. It's cruel to keep someone on the hook like this for up to a month. Additionally, 25 signatures inside a week is far more compelling in terms of demonstrating the strength of feeling against an administrator. (With 30 days, signatures can come in at a rate of less than one a day, yet the threshold will still be reached.) Lastly, it feels counterintuitive having a petition phase four times as long as the RRFA phase that follows it, seeing as any RRFA would be bound to attract a lot more than 25 total votes. As I see it, the petition duration is not the only problem with this new policy, but it's the biggest. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• B - A week should be long enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• B is first preference, but I'm okay with anything up to 14 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• B as previously mentioned in the discussion leading to this RfC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: reading the (three day) discussion above its apparent we have clear consensus to date for option B, the seven day process. This morning, a second recall petition was filed at Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Fastily. These events have relationships. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. More than long enough.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• C. A month is too long, but a week is too short. 14 days seems like the right amount. I would be fine with B if petitions are advertised like RFAs. If not, I prefer A to B. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, considering recent developments, I prefer A to B either way. 14 days is still probably my first choice, but the status quo is a close second, and I oppose B. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• B Just from the current petitions, I can see how much of a living hell it is for the admin/s who is/are the subject of the petition. We don't need to put them in that for longer than seven days. If there aren't enough people wanting to desysop after seven days then a desysop is not warranted. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I think we should revamp the whole process anyways. Just reading the comments added by editors at the discussion should highlight why. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• A users may not even know about it within 7 days. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• B as first choice, C (10 days) as second choice. --Cavarrone 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• B is the most reasonable to show strong community support. 25 signatures in 30 days seems very low. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment due to the recent developments at Graham87's petition, it seems clear this RfC was premature. I see at least four editors here whose first option was seven days, but now have signed the petition. Hypothetically speaking, if G87s petition had only lasted seven days, they wouldn't have been able to sign. In this particular instance here with G87, because of a questionable block by G87 during the ongoing petition, seven days would not have been long enough to get the requisite 25 signatures (which it now has), so again, we shouldn't be so quick to try and evaluate whether this process is working before we even know if it is working. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, it might not have taken people more than a week to sign if the petition was started when Graham had actually done something deserving of it instead of just immediately with, in the opinion of multiple people, insufficient evidence that problems were still happening. That was 15 signatures in less than 12 hours. – 2804:F1...4A:3386 (::/32) (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps those who signed initially are better judges of character than those who signed now, and I was incorrect in assuming most people would realize a years long pattern won't change because of yet another ANI thread. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that we want to start a petition during or immediately after a complaint at the WP:DRAMABOARD. One hopes that cooler heads will prevail, which suggests that what we need is a "notice of intent". Imagine that the petition filer has to post a notice and then wait a week or two before actually starting it. Word can get around, but people won't be swept up by the drama. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's a great idea and one I can get behind. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe instead of/as well as a "notice of intent" make a rule that petitions cannot be initiated until 1 week after any thread discussing that admin at WP:AN, WP:AN/I or WP:AARV is closed. Also requiring three weeks after an improperly initiated petition is closed before a second can be started should seriously dissuade people from starting petitions too soon. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry if my words were misleading, but Graham's ANI had been archived 3 weeks before the petition was started, what I meant by immediately was 'immediately after the recall policy came into effect'. Fastily's did happen with the ANI still ongoing though, which I commented there about. – 2804:F1...4A:3386 (::/32) (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option B: in fact I would prefer if it were even shorter, like 72 hours. Any RRFA petition about an issue serious enough to warrant dragging someone through the gauntlet of a reconfirmation ought to find support among the community very quickly, or they can campaign off-wiki before creating their petition. 72 hours is the time we mandate for ban discussions which are arguably much more serious. The longer these petitions are open, the more likely a petition becomes a dumping ground for every user's polemic opinion about the admin, and other users debating in response to those comments, rather than addressing the issue at hand. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• First choice C, second choice B, oppose status quo (A). Gives time for people to gather evidence after the recall petition launches (without resorting to using draft space as a holding pen), but short enough that you're not waiting for opportunistic individuals to trickle in. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or C (14 days). Although one month is long, it seems likely the discussion will die out if the admin hasn't done or isn't doing anything significantly wrong. For instance, the Fastily petition has received no signatures in the last 24 hours. Only in cases where they continue to take questionable decisions, the petition will receive more signatures. The Graham87 petition received its 25th signature after 1 week. If it wasn't for a longer petition period, we would have had an admin continuing to block newbies for innocent mistakes for a whole another year before a new petition could be initiated.
  Also, per Levivich, other parameters like the number of signatures and the cool-off period should be discussed together if we are going to reduce the duration. – SD0001 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option B but only if recall petitions are sufficiently advertised, similar to CX Zoom's position. unconditionally, to reduce stress on the subject admin. Just realised that the advertising problem was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Notifications_for_petitions, and I don't believe there has been sufficient passage of time or change in circumstance for us to revise that piece of consensus. Liu1126 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or C (two weeks). As the Graham recall petition shows, one week is not enough. There are significant barriers to getting 25 signatures within one week. I know it's been pointed out that RFAs draw 100+ participants in a seven-day period, but those are advertised on watchlists and at WP:CENT; recall petitions are currently not advertised anywhere but WP:RECALL and WP:AN. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• *Option A or C (14 days) - I feel this is not comparable to an RfA process - frivolous filings will be treated as such, filings with merit are almost inevitably going to need to be discussed for a period longer than seven days. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Premature (Summoned by bot) per Levivich; otherwise Option A or C (14 days).Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option A though it should be immediately closed once the threshold is met. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option B, in line with the length of an RfA. A week is long enough. Miniapolis 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option A As someone who opposed this "25 EC editors sign a recall petition within the last 1 month" standard in the Phase II discussion, I will nonetheless argue that it is premature to overturn consensus established only two months ago based on the minimal evidence offered by Fastly and Graham87's recall petitions. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• A. Too soon to change this, and 1 week is also incredibly short.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing lots of people argue that if you can't find 25 signatures in a weak week, it's clearly not a good idea. I'm of the opposite opinion, per the Talmud's advice: If the Sanhedrin unanimously find the accused guilty [in a single day], he is to be acquitted. If you ever find 71 rabbis, or 25 Wikipedia editors, agreeing with each other without a lot of arguing and discussion first, something has gone terribly wrong with the process: either this is a lynch mob, or there's been some kind of collusion. I place more trust in a slow, deliberate process of gathering evidence than a rushed one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you meant "week", although I kind of like the other meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reworkshop. I don't want to call this RfC "bad"—it's hardly a disaster. However, I think it should be redone on the general principle that for one RfC to overturn another, it's not enough for the new question to be "passable"—it has to be better than the original. A weak RfC creates a weaker consensus, and a weak consensus can't overturn a strong one.

  In this case, the original RfC was very good, and set a very high bar. (Hats off to @Voorts for that; he gets an A+ in intuitive social choice.) The original RfC correctly identified two closely-related issues at play here, which can't be handled separately: the signature threshold, and the amount of time. It's impossible to vote on one of these but not the other, because the right timespan depends heavily on the signature threshold.

  In this case, lots of people seem to have voted to slash the timespan with very different motivations. Some people don't want to make recalls any more difficult but want to reduce the amount of stress for admins by making the whole process quicker. Others are skeptical of the whole process and want to prevent frivolous petitions. People in the second group should ask themselves what the first group is probably going to do once an RfC comes up for signature thresholds. Answer: vote for a very low number, to make sure initiating a recall is easy! That means you can end up in a situation where a recall is initiated without much deliberation by just a handful of editors in response to whatever came up in this week's ANI thread. I don't think that's a situation any of us want. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus—in addition to my points above, I want to point out just how strongly the responses break down for administrators vs. editors. To me it looks like administrators are almost-universally voting to make the petition as short as possible, whereas normal editors are asking for more time. A genuine consensus for change needs strong support from both groups, not just one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support option C (15) > option A. Oppose option B, a week too short and not enough to gather signatures. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. If there's really a specific conduct issue that merits recall, a week should be plenty of time to gather the necessary support. If the petition is just going to serve as a general grudge collector or a collective brainstorming session to try to come up with persuasive reasons for recall, the sooner it ends the better for everyone. -- Visviva (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• A. Too soon to change anything that has been decided upon. Let us take a look at the system after it had ran before passing judgment on it now. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• A: Reviewing the current cases, both of them had evidence of issues turn up during the petition period after a week had passed. There needs to be sufficient time to review the situation to determine if the actions of an editor amount to a loss of confidence in them. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• A (no change): Dunno why this RFC was made very suddenly. Convinced by others that this is very premature at this time. Also, Fastily's case proves that shortening the duration to seven days would risk unsuccessful petitions, especially without appropriate ways to bring petitions into greater attention. —George Ho (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• A Fastily's case demonstrates that the current duration is appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• A I see no need to actually shorten this - as we've seen, it might be useful, so B is Right Out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• A'. So far both recalls have seen new evidence emerge past one-week that changed the tide and led to successful recalls. Let's at least see how the re-RFAs (if they occur) before changing things. Things are not so dire that this must be changed now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• B. The shorter the better.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• A or C (14 days); B only if recall petitions are advertised on T:CENT. I agree with others that it's too soon to change this and that 7 days is not long enough for something that's only required to be advertised at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• C (15) > A, Oppose B Unless these Recalls also get published on the users watchlist and CENT, the proposed shorter 1-week period of B is a nonstarter. Raladic (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd go for C at 15 but as S Marshall amongst others point out, it will probably just lead to gaming and userspace drafts. The recall genie should never have been let out of the bottle. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• A Anything less seems far too short, unless users are notified of recalls in the same ways as adminships, etc. 7 days isn't very long at all and would only encourage canvassing. I feel this is different to adminships because the threshold for a petition to pass is a fixed number, not a percentage. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• B but only if users are notified like with RfA, otherwise A Kowal2701 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• A. I agree with Isaidnoway that the RFC and many of the comments were premature, especially in light of the Graham87 petition. And even now still a little premature with only a sample size of two petitions, which happened to proceed in similar time frames. Separately (as it's not directly tied to the RFC question), I think users should not be broadly notified as a matter of course, during the petition phase. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• C—Seven days for a newly-established process feels like it's too short of a time to garner the amount of attention that a recall petition would need. However, I think 30 days of scrutiny is too long, and unfair to the subject of the petition. My preference would be either 10 days, or a fortnight. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC, redo as part of recall workshop. This RFC is a demonstration of why not to propose policy changes hastily based on a single situation, without proper deliberation. The first chunk of votes are for option B, based on Graham's RRFA. Some number of those editors later ended up signing the petitions after 7 days. After that petition closed, the momentum here changed in favour of option A (see everything beyond Isaidnoway's comment), it's a starking yet immediate difference. You have to assume that there is no difference in statistical distribution of the most recent 20 editors and the first 20 editors, aside from the external information they had, which has completely changed sentiment. This RFC should've happened as part of the broader, more deliberate, reworkshop RFC. And so it should be closed as no consensus and redirected for further discussion, as a consensus really can't be determined here, except on the basis of the most recent comments (which, if anything, arrive to option A as a consensus). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Good RFC - I have no real view on the question here but I really disagree with the aggressive management of the discussion around this topic. Centralising the discussion into pre-workshops, workshops, and then RFCs, where only a sub-set of editors contribute in the first stages of the discussion, has the unintended effect of railroading it towards a particular conclusion. There are questions around this process that the community can most certainly answer now and need not wait for the white smoke to billow from a workshopped process before deciding. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• B - and per Yngvadottir. 7 days is the duration of a RfA. The traditional RfA is toxic enough; whatever an admin's misdeeds, the effort should be to conduct any recall product as humanely as possible. If it is possible to attract 200+ users in 7 days to vote on an RfA then it should be possible to raise sufficient interest to vote on a recall in that time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• A. After the first two petitions that succeeded in under two weeks but more than one, it seems that one week is too short. I could see a future "option C" change to something less than a month, but I would want the initial version of the process to have more examples before endorsing that. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• C makes the most sense in my eyes, with no watchlist notifs. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• A - Given how the first two recalls went. I could also see C bring acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• A - Give things a chance to work before rushing to a "fix". Carrite (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• A Significant parties might be unavailable in a shorter period such as a week, being on holiday or otherwise indisposed. Note that an Arbcom case, which is the traditional deliberate process, might take many weeks or months. Concern about the effect on the subject seems overdone. My impression is that the targets are typically quite thick-skinned and not bothered by criticism. The formal process seems likely to follow a long period of dissatisfaction and complaint which has failed to resolve the issue because the subject is incorrigible. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• A, with also some consideration for a C of two weeks, but only if the petition threshold remains the same. If it's raised above 25, then I don't think shortening the time period is appropriate, especially not to just a week in that case. Silverseren^C 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Premature. If a closer thinks there's clear consensus to make a change, I'll vote B as more humane, but I'm voting under protest. I hope closer will take into account that if this RfC had had an option of "No change for now, wait until we have more information", maybe we'd have more people voting that way, as a lot of people have been writing that in anyway, and a significant number of A voters' rationales are that this is premature. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion - Pings

• I don't think it's necessarily premature considering we chose the initial requirements without seeing any of this in practice. Now we have two data points. They both received quite strong participation in the first week, even if neither would've met the threshold. But way more than 25 people commented on them. I still believe that 7 days could work, because it indicates a strong enough community consensus that an RfA wouldn't be crazy contentious. We never got to see Fastily's, but Graham's had way more participation than you usually see at RfA. That may be an abnormal data point because it's simply one, but it's still better than none. In an ideal world, I would've waited and let someone else start an RfC, because they are not my forté. I did it because I wrongly believed that I was the only one thinking about these things at the time. If this is closed early, I would prefer the people who haven't wrote a follow-up comment have the chance to do so. If consensus is against me, so be it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  So courtesy pings to Donald Albury, Steel1943, CommunityNotesContributor, CaptainEek, Rhododendrites, Tazerdadog, Soni, theleekycauldron, Isaidnoway, Kusma, Extraordinary Writ, TheresNoTime, Chaotic Enby, Yngvadottir, Espresso Addict, SerialNumber54129, SWATJester, Daniel, and HouseBlaster. I think there's only so much people you can ping at once, so I'm going to do this in more than one comment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Selfstudier, S Marshall, Zero0000, Chetsford, Novem Linguae, Ivanvector, OhanaUnited, SD0001, Liu1126, Goldsztajn, Pincrete, xaosflux, and ViridianPenguin. I'm assuming anyone who commented on or after November 10 doesn't need to be notified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually think it's good that this went first. The reworkshop is probably going to ask whether the threshold should be raised, so it's helpful to have the duration nailed down. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, as someone who actually supported the current version of the process way back when, I actually think 25 signatures is a high enough bar, even if I changed my mind about the timeframe. If that many people have serious concerns... there's a reason. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Several people have commented that what they think is the correct threshold is impacted by the duration (e.g. a longer duration should require a higher threshold than a shorter one), so fixing one of those variables first will result in a greater likelihood of consensus regarding the other afterwards. Although I still think opening this RFC before Graham's Re-RFA had concluded and Fastily had decided not to stand was the wrong decision, I do think getting consensus on this before launching the main RFC - i.e. the mistake was not holding this RFC but when it was started. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  it's helpful to have the duration nailed down.

  While this is true, this RfC unfortunately can't nail down the duration, because it can always be revisited by another RfC. The issue here is that setting two variables stepwise results in cobwebbing or cycling, which means it's unstable and can generate a lot of drama—every time an RfC closes, you can expect another one to pop up, since people will go "well, now that we've changed the duration/threshold, the current threshold/duration is inappropriate and needs to be revisited".

  Chances are we'd manage to work something out eventually, but the process in the middle might involve lots of drama. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did it because I wrongly believed that I was the only one thinking about these things at the time. In my experience, this is often the case for early RFCs. Either people don't realise others are thinking about the same, or nobody is willing to take the final push. I think the latter wasn't true for this part of recall. It usually is never clear at the moment though, so I sympathise with your decision, even when I disagreed. And like leeky said, there's helpfulness that can come out of this still, we will have a simpler reworkshop. (P.S. Thanks for the ping, I'll update my comment now) Soni (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  What am I being pinged for? I'm not going to read all of this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I believe the question is simply After 2 petitions (Graham87, Fastily) and 1 RRFA (Graham87), do you want to change your !vote above? Soni (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the idea. Because some people have said this is changed or not changed their perspective on what they !voted for already. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did change my perspective since then! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey - Post Ping replies

• My mind is unchanged. A month is too long. 7 days of terrible uncertainty is enough suffering to ask our fellow humans to endure in the name of a volunteer hobby. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  For whatever its worth, the situation where an admin makes a bad edit after the RECALL petition has been opened (à la Graham) seems rare, and going forward, unlikely to happen. Why? Because if it becomes apparent that anything you do during a petition will be watched like a hawk, then folks will do what they do during Arb cases all the time: clam up! It will not take long before an essay is written along the lines of "So you've been put up for recall. Now what?" I'd bet that "stop editing entirely for the duration except to respond to criticism" or some variation thereupon will be advice in that essay. Beyond that, if we're waiting for new evidence to be unearthed past the one week mark, then we're saying that this process is a digging exercise, and that initial petitions can be spurious. That creates the wrong incentive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  At risk of slightly misinterpreting this—"If admins know they're being watched, won't they just change their behavior and avoid doing what Graham did?"

  Well, only if we're lucky! Getting misbehaving admins to stop is the whole reason this process exists! With a longer petition period, we can keep them on good behavior for a whole month, not just a week. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Closed Limelike Curves or we'll just get them to quit, thereby losing our human capital, which is one of the few resources we have. I know you meant this in a somewhat joking manner, but it isn't very funny to the admins on the other end of recall. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't !vote before (I said "too soon"), but if this is going to be an official RfC, then I will support 7 days. Donald Albury 19:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping; while previously ambivalent between (A) and (C), I'm probably closer to no change (A) now than (C), and more strongly against (B). Agree with the comments that once the threshold is reached a recall should be closed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure where to put this, but thanks for the ping. After some thought, I reaffirm my support for Option B, changing the length of the petition period to 7 days. Seriously problematic actions came to light during both now-completed petitions, after the 7 days. In the case of Fastily, IIRC the actions had been taken some time ago. In the case of Graham87, they occurred while the petition was running, but during Graham's RRfA, someone uncovered previously unreported bad actions from about a year ago. If an admin has seriously misused their bit, the sooner the misuse is uncovered and if possible remedied, the better. In an RfA, the community has a single week to examine the candidate's contributions, and it's unlikely anything disqualificatory will be found (we expect nominators to have looked for skeletons in the closet, and the "conflict" question is an opportunity for the candidate themself to reflect). If someone believes an admin is so abusive they should be recalled and therefore starts a petition, a week should be enough to find problem actions. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir| 100% agreement with that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I had already come back and reaffirmed my comment for B after the change in Graham's discussion, but before the pings were sent out. I'll say now that my position has still not changed. I've also followed as the RfC sentiment has seemed to shift a bit over time, and that has not changed my opinion, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the unnecessary ping, then. I must have misread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't get a ping, I'm just following here, and wanted to say what I said. No need to apologize. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.