Misplaced Pages

:Administrator recall: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:21, 22 November 2024 editAlalch E. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers30,008 edits wlTag: Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:18, 19 December 2024 edit undoJoe Roe (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators42,059 edits Undid revision 1263920249 by CommunityNotesContributor (talk). I think has a courtesy to the subjects this should not be so prominently displayed.Tag: Undo 
(29 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:RECALL|voluntary recall|WP:Administrators open to recall|previous failed proposals|WP:History of de-adminship proposals#Proposed processes}} {{redirect|WP:RECALL|voluntary recall|WP:Administrators open to recall|previous failed proposals|WP:History of de-adminship proposals#Proposed processes}}
{{Shortcuts|WP:ADMINRECALL|WP:RECALL|WP:ADRC}} {{shortcuts|WP:ADMINRECALL|WP:RECALL|WP:ADRC}}
{{ombox|text=You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to the recall process at ''']'''. After the reworkshop is closed, the proposals will be voted on at an RfC.}} {{ombox|text=You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to the recall process at ''']'''. After the reworkshop is closed, the proposals will be voted on at an RfC.}}
'''Administrator recall''' is a process by which the community can require an ] to make a '''re-request for adminship''' (RRfA) to retain their administrative privileges. It is one of ] that adminship can be reviewed or removed. '''Administrator recall''' is a process by which the community can require an ] to make a '''re-request for adminship''' (RRfA) to retain their administrative privileges. It is one of ] that adminship can be reviewed or removed.


In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at {{slink|WP:Administrators|Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")}}. Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated. In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at {{slink|WP:Administrators|Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")}}. Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated.

Historically, many administrators have been ]. While this page describes a process that all administrators must follow, admins can additionally create and follow their own independent recall process, including modified versions of this process that make it easier for them to be recalled.


== Petition == == Petition ==
<!-- Requirements for opening a petition --> <!-- Requirements for opening a petition -->
Any ] editor may start a petition for an active{{efn|The status of an administrator who:{{blist|has been notified about pending ] and whose status is ] in a way consistent with the administrator policy, or|has been totally inactive for at least 3 months (] is a periodically updated list of administrators who have not edited in the last 3 months)}}can not be the subject of a recall petition. Such a petition is summarily dismissed and has no effect on the administrator, as if it had never existed (it does not even count as failed), even if they resume activity while the petition is technically open.{{pb}}Attempts to address the perceived issue through other methods of dispute resolution can be made throughout. If the issue is an emergency, see the ].}} administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community. The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful ], ], or ], or within twelve months of the administrator being ] or ]. If a petition fails, another petition to recall the same administrator may not be started for six months from the date the last one was closed. Any ] editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community. The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful ], ], or ], or within twelve months of the administrator being ] or ]. If a petition fails, another petition to recall the same administrator may not be started for six months from the date the last one was closed.

If the prior dispute resolution method customarily entails closing and/or archiving a discussion, that discussion should be either closed or archived for the instance of dispute resolution to be regarded as a valid attempt. A reasonable waiting period measured in days{{efn|longer than any period which would usually be measured in hours and shorter than any period which would be usually measured in weeks or months}} should follow, allowing time for a perspective to be gained on the possibility that the issue has been adequately addressed by then.{{efn|The petition may be started irrespective of the waiting period (but not without a valid prior attempt at dispute resolution) in the first instant of the dispute obviously showing as still active due to the same or similar disputed actions being taken again, or having been taken on an ongoing basis all along, by the administrator.}} Following this, an editor should start the petition only if they are able to assert with evidence that the last attempt has not adequately addressed the issue and that prior dispute resolution methods have therefore failed.


<!-- Opening a petition --> <!-- Opening a petition -->
Line 19: Line 19:


<!-- Closing a petition --> <!-- Closing a petition -->
If a petition reaches the required twenty five signatures within thirty days, it should be closed. The subject is then required to make a re-request for adminship or stand as a candidate in an ]. The same requirement exists when a petition is closed early at the subject's request or if they agree to make a re-request for adminship; it should also be closed early if they resign their adminship. A petition that has been open for thirty days and has not gained the required number of signatures should be closed without requiring the subject to make re-request for adminship. If a petition reaches the required twenty five signatures within thirty days, it should be closed. The closer should then notify the subject using {{tls|Admin recall notice/passed}} and the administrator's noticeboard using {{tls|Admin recall notice/AN/passed}}. The subject is then required to make a re-request for adminship or stand as a candidate in an ] if they want to remain an admin. The same requirement exists when a petition is closed early at the subject's request or if they agree to make a re-request for adminship; it should also be closed early if they resign their adminship. A petition that has been open for thirty days and has not gained the required number of signatures should be closed without requiring the subject to make re-request for adminship.

<!--Invalid petitions: General considerations -->
If a petition is opened contrary to the requirements for opening a petition for any reason that cannot be quickly and easily fixed, it may be closed by any editor other than the subject administrator. Such invalid petitions are treated as never having existed for the purposes of determining when a new petition may be initiated and do not affect the subject's status as an administrator in any way.

<!--Invalid petitions: Bad-faith petitions -->
A valid petition is one started in good faith, ], whereas a petition started in bad faith is invalid, which may be determined upon an assertion of bad faith—an accusation that ]. The following are some rules of thumb for determining whether a petition is invalid as a bad-faith petition:
* Petitions should not be closed as invalid based on editors’ impressions that they lack viability, i.e. that there is no prospect of reaching the threshold. The course of the petition stage will reveal whether the recall initiative was viable, potentially providing insights for future decisions.
* It can be assumed that a recall initiative signifies an escalation of a conflict between users, accompanied by stress on various sides and consuming significant volunteer time. This is a calculated risk. Such assertions, while probably true, are not by themselves evidence of bad faith on anyone’s part. Claiming that the administrator should not be recalled, that starting the petition was an error, that the petition is “harmful” in the sense of the aforementioned calculated risk does not help establish that the petition was started in bad faith.
* A valid petition does not become invalid when the situation arising from the recall initiative begins to be perceived as nebulously “disruptive” or “]”—poor conduct does not invalidate proper process. A worsening of the atmosphere during a petition and personal attacks and incivility connected to the underlying dispute should be addressed by ]: There is ], and everyone is individually accountable for their behavior.
* Claiming that the petition is invalid as a bad-faith petition is a claim that the starter of the petition deliberately did so to hurt Misplaced Pages—a serious accusation about personal behavior which ]. Outside of a determination that the initiator started the petition to hurt Misplaced Pages, petitions can not be closed as invalid because of poor behavior among involved users.

Following from the above, petitions whose sole purpose is
* harassing an administrator, such as by hounding (], while respecting the fact that administrators are ]);
* pure retaliation on the basis of a spurious reasoning, far beyond the bounds of a resonable interpretation of facts and conventions;
* disruption through repeated similar postings that egregiously fail to meet the requirements for a valid petition;
may be considered as more likely instances of the petition starter’s bad-faith animus that should be handled in an appropriate separate venue.


<div style="max-width: fit-content;margin-inline: auto"> <div style="max-width: fit-content;margin-inline: auto">
Line 53: Line 37:


===Closed petitions=== ===Closed petitions===
A list of closed recall petitions and resulting RRfAs may be found at ]. A list of closed recall petitions and resulting RRfAs may be found at ].


== Re-request for adminship == == Re-request for adminship ==
{{Shortcut|WP:RRfA}} {{Shortcut|WP:RRfA}}
An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to ] within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an ] is scheduled within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead. An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to ] within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an ] is scheduled to begin within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead.


A RRfA follows the same process as a ], but with lower thresholds for passing. In an RRfA, any administrator who obtains at least 60% support will retain their administrator role. If the administrator receives between 50 and 60% support, the community's consensus will be determined by the ]. If the administrator runs in an administrator election instead of initiating a re-request for adminship, they must obtain at least 55% support to retain their administrative privileges. An RRfA follows the same process as a ], but with lower thresholds for passing. In an RRfA, any administrator who obtains at least 60% support will retain their administrator role. If the administrator receives between 50 and 60% support, the community's consensus will be determined by the ]. If the administrator runs in an administrator election instead of initiating a re-request for adminship, they must obtain at least 55% support to retain their administrative privileges.


The ]s are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion. Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats may remove their privileges. The ]s are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion. Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats may remove their privileges.

==Notes==
{{notelist}}


==See also== ==See also==
Line 71: Line 52:
*]{{snd}}history of previous attempts to create an administrator recall process *]{{snd}}history of previous attempts to create an administrator recall process
*]{{snd}}page to propose and refine changes to rework Administrator recall *]{{snd}}page to propose and refine changes to rework Administrator recall
{{RfA Navigation}}


] ]

Latest revision as of 12:18, 19 December 2024

"WP:RECALL" redirects here. For voluntary recall, see WP:Administrators open to recall. For previous failed proposals, see WP:History of de-adminship proposals § Proposed processes. Shortcuts
You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to the recall process at Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. After the reworkshop is closed, the proposals will be voted on at an RfC.

Administrator recall is a process by which the community can require an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRfA) to retain their administrative privileges. It is one of several ways that adminship can be reviewed or removed.

In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at WP:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse"). Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated.

Historically, many administrators have been open to voluntary recall. While this page describes a process that all administrators must follow, admins can additionally create and follow their own independent recall process, including modified versions of this process that make it easier for them to be recalled.

Petition

Any extended confirmed editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community. The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or re-request for adminship, or within twelve months of the administrator being elected an administrator or elected to the Arbitration Committee. If a petition fails, another petition to recall the same administrator may not be started for six months from the date the last one was closed.

The editor who starts the petition must notify the administrator on their user talk page using the {{subst:Admin recall notice}} template. They must also post a notice to the administrator's noticeboard using the {{subst:Admin recall notice/AN}} template.

Any extended confirmed editor may add their signature to a petition, with or without reasoning. An editor can sign no more than five active petitions. Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page. Any signature or comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship.

If a petition reaches the required twenty five signatures within thirty days, it should be closed. The closer should then notify the subject using {{subst:Admin recall notice/passed}} and the administrator's noticeboard using {{subst:Admin recall notice/AN/passed}}. The subject is then required to make a re-request for adminship or stand as a candidate in an administrator election if they want to remain an admin. The same requirement exists when a petition is closed early at the subject's request or if they agree to make a re-request for adminship; it should also be closed early if they resign their adminship. A petition that has been open for thirty days and has not gained the required number of signatures should be closed without requiring the subject to make re-request for adminship.


Current petitions

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall/Current. (edit | history)

This is a list of open administrator recall petitions and petitions that passed the threshhold for recall in the past 30 days so the administrator may run for Re-request for Adminship.

  • none currently

Closed petitions

A list of closed recall petitions and resulting RRfAs may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall/Closed.

Re-request for adminship

Shortcut

An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an administrator election is scheduled to begin within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead.

An RRfA follows the same process as a request for adminship, but with lower thresholds for passing. In an RRfA, any administrator who obtains at least 60% support will retain their administrator role. If the administrator receives between 50 and 60% support, the community's consensus will be determined by the bureaucrats. If the administrator runs in an administrator election instead of initiating a re-request for adminship, they must obtain at least 55% support to retain their administrative privileges.

The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion. Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats may remove their privileges.

See also

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Categories: