Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372

• Zemen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First the user was already reported in september by user:HistoryofIran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent_attacks_and_provocation_by_Zemen.

During a discussion they commented me with, "Fixed. is that really the core of the problem? It doesn't seem reasonable to rename the entire template based on a few links related to one region. please keep your national biases out of this discussion." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_12&diff=prev&oldid=1295230194 . They seems not have learned from the last report. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

so, what is the point?  Zemen  (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

More

This is absurd, can someone tell me which

WP:ASPERSIONS?  Zemen  (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Clearly, the aspersions in the one and only diff that Shadow4dark cites. By itself this is not very similar to the previous report, where you were shown to be commenting on other editors' ethnicity in a way that very definitely did merit sysop attention. In this case you're attacking people for having "national biases". It's not wonderful behaviour on your part, Zemen, but unless further diffs are forthcoming, I would anticipate no stronger sanction than the waggy finger and frowny face of mild community disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If it were anyone else in my position, they likely would have responded in the same way. Please review the edit history of Template:Life in Kurdistan to see how Shadow4dark consistently attempted to impose one particular viewpoint. When those edits did not succeed, he nominated the template for deletion.  Zemen  (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a

WP:CTOP and you did the comments in these topics. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If it were anyone else in my position, they likely would have responded in the same way.

That is not very reassuring, considering you also tried to justify your attacks against me, and just a month ago you were not being very collaborative when I expressed my concerns about your edits on your talk page [1] (where you once again threw

WP:ASPERSIONS against me, "I will bring it to an admin to review your non-neutral reverts."). Can you please elaborate on what exactly happened, with diffs and everything? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't mix separate issues. This discussion is about a different matter, and the issue between you and me was resolved long ago. If you still believe I acted improperly and want to pursue it further, you are free to raise it in a separate section. Also, all I said in my talkpage was: I’m the bad guy now, got it? just a way of saying 'I was wrong', not a villain speech. I honestly don’t understand what was inappropriate about that.  Zemen  (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, this is the perfect place to raise it, since this report is about you, particularly your

WP:ASPERSIONS. By all means, please elaborate on what exactly happened this time, since you're also justifying this one. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're referring to is part of a past issue that was already addressed and doesn't directly relate to the current situation. This discussion should remain focused on the specific concern raised in this report. If you believe the previous matter is still unresolved, you're free to raise it in a separate and appropriate venue. As for justification, as I said, please review the history of Template:Life in Kurdistan. When Shadow4dark was unable to attach the name "iraq" to the template or remove the existing name "Kurdistan", he nominated it for deletion. When that nomination lacked strong grounds, he then tried to redirect attention toward me, the template’s creator, using a minor comment as justification.  Zemen  (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It's still not inappropriate as it's part of your

WP:ASPERSIONS against others, and it's not going to be swept under the rug no matter how you much you try to dismiss it. And your explanation is not much better, but I am not going to bother further. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Zemen, I have no idea who is right here, but that doesn't matter. Unsourced accusations of bias make it impossible to have a discussion about it.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the template talk page is a red link. Seriously, both of you should know better than that. Don't just "pull levers" (revert, TFD, ANI) to get your way, actually talk to each other. There are obvious possible solutions here: if the links are only about Iraqi Kurdistan and not the other parts of Kurdistan, we can add more links from the other parts of Kurdistan. Or rename the template to "Life in Iraqi Kurdistan." The scope of the template and inclusion of links (including the Easter egg piping concerns) can be discussed on the template talk page (or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere). Approach this as if you're actually trying to reach an agreement with the other person, rather than making accusations of bias or trying to "pull a lever" to "win" the dispute. Zemen shouldn't have made accusations of bias and S4D shouldn't have skipped the template talk page and gone straight to reverts and TFD. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• But also, this idea that "anyone else would have done as I did" needs to be caught and shot, right now. No. Say what's wrong with someone's sources, or their logic, or their calculations, or their choice of words. Do not say what's wrong with their attitude, nationality, ethnicity, politics, culture, or religion. People active in contentious topics need to grasp this or they don't last.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comments. you're right, I should've used the template's talk page first. I can re-explain there why the template should remain titled "Life in Kurdistan" and not limited to a specific region.  Zemen  (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not limited to this template. [[2]] here they removed region from this template but all of these articles are related to Kurdistan Region and not whole of Kurdistan. Maybe you can take a look as third party, user:Levivich. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently created Politics of Kurdistan, which covers all parts of Kurdistan, not just the Kurdistan Region. I added it to the template accordingly. If there's a better way to include or place the link, feel free to adjust it.  Zemen  (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are currently 149 RMs in the backlog, the oldest of which is from April. Would be great if someone could close some of them. Thanks a lot! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a whack at it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My RM closing activity has been minimal recently. I am between more venues myself (here and on the community front as well, leading a user group and a regional hub). Coupled with the section below, it feels like there is a flux of admin regulars in many venues. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, this project opts everyone in to the XTools restricted statistics. (rather disgusting practice imo) How can we opt out? The documentation says by deleting the respective user page, but I don't even have one. --Entinator (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Entinator, to my knowledge it is not possible. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not possible. And what is disgusting is trying to censor public data and pretend you can put the cat back in the bag, as opting out is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The Xtools graphs can be very easily replicated with some python, and use publicly available information, it makes sense to show it to users instead of obfuscating it to only people who are determined enough to look for it. Sohom (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Who of you are administrators in this project? --Entinator (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Sohom and I are both admins. Qwerfjkl is not. Which isn't particularly relevant here, since admins have no more authority than non-admins in this area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering if it is normal that admins in enWP share their personal takes on privacy infringement rather than pointing people to the right place to resolve their issues. @Pppery You seem to be unaware that people in other countries of wherever you live have different concepts of privacy and not displaying a behaviour profile which could be "easily replicated" by a person with specific interest in you and motivation to code has nothing to do with censorship where I come from. To say it would be disgusting to try to do what the documentation suggests to be possible is rather rude. Thanks for your help.--Entinator (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@

nation-state advisory of any kind, they already have the tools to do what XTools does (and much much more), if you are afraid of your personal privacy through individuals stalking, you, in most cases the same applies. It makes more sense to make sure people are aware that these kinds of analysis are possible than to give a false sense of security through obscurity. In any case, what others have said, on enwiki there isn't a way to prevent this graph from being shown at the moment. If you have any specific other concerns with Xtools, mw:Talk:XTools is where it should go, not on the adminstrative noticeboard. Sohom (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Just because I don't see it said so explicitly above: everything that happens on wikipedia is logged. every time anyone edits any page, it becomes part of a public log alongside their username, timestamp, etc. All versions of all pages are always visible forever (with very rare exceptions). This is by design. Those logs are accessible both here on the website and through the database, and there are many tools like xtools which use them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't add [[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]] via HotCat. HumanRight 22:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish that was a feature rather than a bug; that category is just an open invitation for BLP/

WP:DOB policy violations. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So just need to add [[Category:Lliving people]]? Or should be add [[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]] manually? HumanRight 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to ask your question at

WP:VPT. The question isn't really related to admins in general.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As a purely technical matter, there are not significant parallel histories here; the only version of the draft that is parallel to the article is your AfC decline, which I could just bury entirely. This instead turns on the threshold question of whether there is a cut-and-paste move in the first place. Right now I'm not seeing any evidence that the article creator was even aware of the draft, which would make me suggest just BLARing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery – Thanks for letting me know. I was also leaning towards BLAR'ing it; if someone else concurs with this viewpoint I'll just go ahead and do it. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: I concur with Pppery. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The petition at

Seems we have our 3rd(?) successful(?) application of this recall process. I believe after the previous 2, there was some discussion that a 30 day threshold for the 25 signatures could keep the Sword of Damocles hanging far too long. I feel, but clearly not everyone agrees, that in this case we went the other direction and moved too quickly. Having seen how it worked out, I feel that a petition should need to be open for a minimum number of days (3? 5? 7?) before the 25 signature threshold is applied to close it as successful. This is a discussion-based process, and we need time for discussion to occur, for people to get up to speed, make up their minds, and potentially be influenced by the words of others (including the admin being discussed). We do have an emergency desysop process where such a delay is not acceptable. In my mind, such a minimum-days rule would be in addition to the existing rule that a petition is closed as unsuccessful if 25 signatures are not reached in 30 days.

Where and when would something like this be worth discussing, as a change to the recall process? I see there were semi-recent abortive attempts (

Martinp (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion will also take place in the RfA. I'm not convinced it makes a difference. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge I believe Bbb23 has elected not to re-apply for adminship, so I don't believe a RfA will occur. GalStar (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Unless you expect people to remove their signatures, extending the number of days before the 25 threshold is accepted seems like it would do little but let the more editors add their names. CMD (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought Martinp meant that there should be a period of discussion before it's opened to signatures. Could be wrong. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I did mean "let people sign anytime after it's started, but only close as successful after a minimum of 5(or whatever) days". So that people could remove their signatures if new facts come to light, or the admin responds in a good way, or whatever. In this case, I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but had Bbb23 responded in a certain way, I could see some signatories un-signing. But there are many ways we could implement something that feels less bring-out-the-pitchforks-quickly, including discussion before voting (as you just wrote). That all said, I'm not sure a footnote on AN to one petition being certified is the right venue to have a good discussion. But where is?

Martinp (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall, probably. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that there has already been one previous Recall that was raised due to overzealous blocking, so this one is not entirely new ground. CMD (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

For a summary along with some of my opinions: Per

WP:CLOSEDARP

, this is the 5th application. All petitions have reached the threshold so far and all petitions have been closed early as a result. (Though there was some discussion about the first two discussion being closed after the 25 signatures were reached, but before the time expired.) This is currently the third shortest and third longest recall by time. (With quick rounding: 5 hours, 8 hours, 9 hours, 9 days, 10 days.) Regarding the reasons as to opening a petition, this most recent one one was the shortest and instead pointed to diffs rather than explaining, so there will be some assumptions here: Three of the petitions involved conduct, two of the petitions involved blocks, two of the petitions involved limited admin activity, and one of the petitions involved content deletion.

With regards to the first two recalls, both had periods of time where no new signatures occurred. The first had just over four days without new signers and the second had over five days without new signers. As I recall, that put some concern on increasing the number of signers required. With regards to the three most recent recalls, all of them have been over within half a day. Additionally, all of them have been this year as there was a gap of four months without a petition being opened.

With regards to at least this recall, it has been discussed off of Wikipedia. In fact, there was a direct link to the recall posted roughly within the last four hours it was opened. I believe that similar situations have occurred for the prior recalls. (Personally, this is the second time a recall situation has occurred that made me think it was not fully fair for the user involved.)

For the majority of the recalls, the discussion sections of each have had comments that have varied from talking about modification to various rules or procedures to making suggestions for the future. Examples include: There was discussion on if petitions could be opposed and additional discussion on if they could be snow closed due to the number of opposed; discussion on if other rights would/should be removed; discussion on ending the recall process entirely; discussion on if recall should be done when there are still unclosed discussions at AN/ANI; and discussion on if recall can/should be done when there was not a recent prior AN/ANI discussion nor a recent talk page discussion. (I would not be surprised if this is not a full summary given the first two recall discussion sections.)

And finally, I would like to point to

WP:RECALL/RFC, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, and Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. For WP:RECALL/RFC, it details the discussions that led to recall being created and, more importantly for this, the discussions that have requested changes to the procedure and rules. For "Administrator recall/Reworkshop", this was a plan to rework how the recall process functioned. As can be seen here and seen here as you linked to

, this process concluded without the RfC occurring. I am unsure if it was due to a decrease in activity or another issue, though. (I will note here that most of the discussion occurred during the four month period where no recall petitions were open.) Finally, the archives of the talk page for recall has had a number of discussions in the archive over adding or modifying the rules and procedures.

Personally, I would not mind it being modified to simultaneously add a day to the length and add a wait period of one day before signers can endorse the petition. Basically a 24-hour wait period which seems to have been suggested (intentionally or not) above. I could also see increasing the number of signers as a possible discussion point, though that has been debated in the past. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• So, this petition was open less than 9 hours, on a page hardly anyone knows about much less has on their watch lists, and then summarily closed as a fait accompli? Does this seem fair to anybody? How about people not on-wiki, or even awake, during those few (nine) hours? Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Everything was regular. Letting the collecting of signatures run for longer would only have meant that when someone finally certifies at some point past the 25-signature mark, the number of signatures collected is greater than 25. In this case it was 26, because it is difficult to close at 25 with signatures coming in rapid-fire mode, as they were. The closer also needs to check every incoming signature for validity. It is more appropriate and courteous to close when the threshold is reached than to leave it running for longer and collect a needlessly large number of extra signatures. —Alalch E. 07:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Example text

  WP:RECALL petitions are a one-way support-only process - if 25 signatures are logged then the petition is successful. There's no part of the process that involves opposing it. The space for editors to voice their opposition to the editor being desysopped is at the subsequent RRFA, only that Bbb opted not to go through RRFA and instead simply await a desysop. Because of the way this process works, the amount of time it's active is not really relevant - 25 sigs in nine hours is the same as 25 sigs in 30 days, and there's nothing that people who object to it could have done in that time anyway. I suppose you could argue that opponents could induce signatories to change their mind via comments in the "Discussion" section but that doesn't seem to be the way it generally pans out. Making the recall more visible or forcing it to run for a longer period would almost certainly simply result in more signatures rather than fewer. Anyway, if you want to propose changes to the recall process then you're free to do so at the relevant forums, but for now it seems to me it's working as the community mandated it to work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  The process needs reform then.

  TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  See

  WP:RECALL/RFC, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall's archives, and Wikipedia:Administrator recall/January 2025 request for comment

  for prior attempts.

  Note: This is a comment opposing such action, but a comment pointing out that it has been attempted before and has stalled out. If there is new motivation to trying again, it might occur this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  I also believe that the process needs reform. We lost Graham87 already as an admin, who at least kept editing. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Graham is the one who actually went through the re-RfA process and handily was rejected. Are you seriously complaining that the community in massive numbers agreed that he was no longer fit to be an admin? What the heck does that case especially have to do with recall reform, Gerda Arendt? Silverseren^C 22:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems way to easy to do this. Do people really want to get rid of one of the admins who is most active in

TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

People, ie the community, want to be rid of admins who abuse their positions, other editors, and especially new editors. Why do you want to keep abusive people in our community around? Silverseren^C 22:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And besides,

I'm sure there are other admins and SPI clerks willing to cover the workload without Bbb23. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It's way to [sic] easy, but only five (!) petitions have been initiated over the last eight frickin' months...  Tewdar  22:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And it really feels like Master Jay and Gimmetrow's should barely even count, comparatively, because that was more the community stepping in to deal with an abuse and gaming of the system that really should have been more aggressively dealt with prior to that by bureaucrats. Imho, at least. Silverseren^C 23:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

How often do we see a proposal that gets 25 supports within a day? That's not easy, that's an unusually-high level of agreement on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that the fact the recall petition gained traction so quickly was a sign something needed to be done, and quite swiftly, too. I will state for the record that I would've supported it, but I was away from my computer at the time. I do not believe that there are any issues with the recall system at present, and I would declare myself as being open to the process for any of my userrights if the community felt I was not using them properly - that is just how sure of the system I am. Patient Zero^talk 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the noticeboard discussion preceding the petition is the reason for the rapid sign-on. If there were one thing I'd change in the recall process, it would be to require a noticeboard discussion of some sort (that is, no specific requirement other than that a discussion occcurred) prior to a recall petition. That would provide notice to the admin in question of the concerns and help inform petition signers of the nature of the issues in a more balanced way than if just a petition without a prior discussion was advanced. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Haven't all of the listed recall cases had a prior noticeboard discussion about the editor that led to them? I'm pretty sure they did. It might not need to be an explicit rule, since it seems like something that just happens naturally as a lead in to the petition occurring. They don't occur out of the blue. Silverseren^C 23:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I’d like for that to be made an explicit rule, in all fairness, just to be sure. We have only had a few recall petitions take place so far, so it’s likely the system or the “politics” could change with time. Therefore a requirement to have a discussion on AN beforehand is an appropriate safeguard. Patient Zero^talk 23:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the fixed duration for the petition period along with the once-every-six-months limitation results in experienced editors only starting a petition if there is an active discussion thread with significant attention, which provides a ready base of editors to register their opinion immediately. If newbies start learning about the recall process, it's possible the time-consuming petitions that many worried about will appear. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In practice, we have had either one or two of the petitions where the creator didn't follow this, if memory serves. It was one of the petitions where the main issue was limited admin activity. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That situation was being discussed on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, right. That slipped my mind. Though, it looks like the fourth petition was never discussed other than a warning to the user weeks before it was posted, from what I see. (Though, wrong once, likely wrong twice.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Even when a pre-RfC discussion has dozens of editors in it, getting 25 supports in under a day is unusual. I completely agree with you that prior discussion should be had, and I think there were multiple prior discussions in each recall case so far. WP:RECALL already says "Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated," and that verbiage seems to be doing its job, so far. Levivich (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Either that or the posts off-Wikipedia that drew attention to the petition. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to address a point raised above - Do people really want to get rid of one of the admins who is most active in

WP:RRFA. Of the two questioned here, Graham87 went through with the RRFA and failed it. Bbb23 chose to (functionally) resign the tools instead of attempting a RRFA. I have (as I mentioned in some of the "gaming the system" discussions) some concerns about the useage of the recall system, but that's a community issue, not a systematic one, and as far as I can tell the system is working exactly as designed and intended. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:BEANS alert. Let's say I'm a rogue billionaire who outright wants to destroy Wikipedia. How would I do it? I'd look for weaknesses in its policies that could be exploited. Get a bunch of worker bees in Moscow and New Delhi to create a few dozen accounts and putter around with a few thousand harmless edits each to reach whatever is the minimum credibility point, and then find (or manufacture) some justification for pecking away at those admins who would be the biggest obstacles to my efforts. Every active administrator has to make some calls, closing hotly contested discussions, blocking trolls, deleting promotional content, etc. Some of those calls will be controversial. If it only takes 25 !votes to put an admin on the chopping block, then my (hypothetical rogue billionaire) work is half done for me. BD2412 T 20:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't work because everyone would notice, and anyway nobody seeking to destroy Wikipedia would try it because removing an admin's admin privileges isn't going to destroy Wikipedia. Someone with a personal grudge against a particular admin might try it, but then still, everyone would notice, and it wouldn't work. Even if no one noticed, it still wouldn't work because the admin would pass RRFA. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

My experience with the first petition leads me to disagree with your statement, in particular with your last sentence. There was a notable oppose bump when that RRfA was linked to off of Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that opposes are irrelevant to this petition process. All it needs is 25 supporters. Hoping that the admin will not just leave altogether like Bbb, will sign up for an RRFA, and that the RRFA will pass are too late. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think its useful, its good confirmation that they weren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to play with a mop. Any admin who is not 100% willing to continue editing as a non-admin should immediately be shown the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I feel that's unfair. I would stick around if I were stripped of my admin rights because I enjoy writing articles more than I enjoy adminning but I would find it hard not to take a recall as a repudiation of my tens of thousands of admin actions over 15 years, as I think would anyone who was stripped of a volunteer role they had put thousands of hours into. It's not surprising that some of those people choose to stop volunteering in any capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It would in a way be a repudiation of your tens of thousands of admin actions over 15 years, what it wouldn't be is a repudiation of your tens of thousands of non-admin edits... So your argument is missing a step, it would be reasonable to not seek the mop again after mop actions were repudiated... But the logic that gets you to not editing if you really are here to build an encyclopedia is missing. In a general volunteer context it would be absurd to keep a non-profit board member or executive around if you were certain that they would cease volunteering at all if they lost their board/leadership position, thats not someone you want involved in the org that isn't volunteering thats a power trip. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A rogue billionaire or, if we want to sound more plausibly concerned, nation-state actor that sought to destroy Wikipedia and took the time to study its internal processes would have several methods at their disposal. The existence of recall as currently constructed would be but a trifling factor in selecting among them. Surface-level analysis obviously, but I suspect most of them would feature RECALL little if at all. There are some good reasons that have been raised in various fora to consider changes to the recall process without veering into the dramatic. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A far simpler approach would be to hire enough people to gain the community's trust and become key contributors and administrators. They would then be able to sway consensus in the direction favoured by the sponsor. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

What about an interface admin? Via common.js they would essentially have access to everyone's account at once. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that if an interface admin modifies some global JavaScript to force everyone to sign a RRFA then the fact that they have done so will not escape notice since, among other things, edits to JavaScript, like everything else, are logged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I assumed the person who posted the hypothetical in question was using "destroy" to mean that permanent harm was done to English Wikipedia's content in some way. Sure, an interface admin could subvert trust in Wikipedia, thus reducing the inflow of new editors and causing Wikipedia to lose editors. But as Pppery notes, any explicit changes they make are in plain sight and directly attributable to them. I think enlisting enough editors to sway consensus is more effective even as a way to subvert trust. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Aut admin, aut nihil is the kind of attitude that convinces me we're better off without someone. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• OK, given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Necrothesp and the ensuing bruhaha on the recall page, I reiterate my request that we add a mandatory step of a discussion of the issue on the appropriate noticeboard prior to starting a petition. I do not want that to be a barrier to recall, so there is no requirement that the discussion end in any certain way, only that it occurs and covers at least some of the reasons for the recall. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I second Rsjaffe here and thus also wish to reiterate my support for compulsory noticeboard discussions (either AN or ANI) prior to any recall petitions being instated. I would like this requirement to be in writing rather than a mere "hidden social rule", so as to avoid any further situations akin to the one Necrothesp faced. Patient Zero^talk 03:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is the risk that this merely makes opening an AN seem a perfunctory step towards opening Recall, and would directly frame AN discussions as a Recall step. Is there a significant difference to others telling the initiator to slow down here vs to slow down on the page? CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's fine to talk about the requirement to have a noticeboard discussion prior to launching a recall petition but this is not the appropriate forum for anything to be done about that suggestion. This conversation needs to be relocated to the Administrator recall policy talk page if this is a change you want to occur. This is

  WP:AN so this is just a discussion we are having among admins that won't lead to any procedural changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  The CTOP alert system kind of functions in a similar way. The only reason I give them out is because I plan to take that person to AE if they keep misbehaving. A similar dynamic could be created if AN/ANI became a mandatory step in RECALL. No idea if this would be good or bad or doesn't matter, but just wanted to point out the pattern. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  1. There is already instruction on WP:RECALL saying alternative dispute resolution methods should be tried first

  2. A recall was started without first trying alternatives and it was quickly withdrawn.

  3. Rather than seeing this as the system working correctly, exactly as intended, we want more rules ...

  When an admin makes a bad block, there are no calls for RFA reform or desysop to make sure it never happens again. When it comes to admins holding editors accountable, errors in the system are tolerated. But when it comes to holding admins accountable, errors are completely intolerable, at least to some. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hardly surprising, the number of admins is small and the failure to guard the pedia from rouge actors is damaging both to the pedia and to participation in the project. (Also reforming RfA is preenial for all kinds of reasons, there is no shortage of that.) And judgement calls are judgement calls, they are not algorithms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  This brings me to one of my biggest bugbears about the Wikipedia community: there is essentially no feedback. This is especially true of maintenance and admin tasks. And what feedback there is is almost always negative. It feels like many people had concerns about Bbb23, Fastily, and Graham87 going back a long time but previous complaints have focused on isolated incidents and then things have snowballed quickly as a complaint about an isolated incident has become a lengthy discussion about a pattern of behaviour where the admin may not be aware that their practice has diverged from community expectations. At times, I miss the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It would be nice to have something like that with a closing statement that sums up the concerns. In those days, the idea was that it could be used as evidence in an ArbCom case if problems persisted but that could be equally true of a recall petition.

  As an aside, enwiki is very lucky to have so many dedicated and available admins; if you want to know what it feels like to have to wait hours or days even for urgent or simple admin interventions, I would recommend spending some time on Commons or Meta or the smaller Wikipedias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Certainly the group of the willing and capable is small (I happen to think 'willing' is the more limiting factor) but it is certainly easier to create a bunch of accounts than to create admins. (I don't miss RfC/U, it was a cross between a circular firing squad and a pillory.) My bugbear is we have never created systems and spaces for admins to work out/on adminning issues -- improving adminship. Theoretically they could audit each other's 'important' actions from time to time, but the project is unlikely to give them space to do that (assuming they were again, willing to talk to each other (and had time)). (As an aside, Bbb23 had I believe that odd (to me) issue with checkuser rules a few years ago, which some see as his warning.)

  To get back to the present recall system, I think the problems might be: 1) it is a quick factional vote system which does not fit comfortably with a consensus system, and compounding the first is 2) it is more than likely to be final, regardless of the subsequent process allowed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Admins are humans - many forget that. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree very much with that analysis, Harry, particularly in the three cases you cite. I don't think it's true that there was essentially no feedback, nor that previous complaints focused on isolated issues. And this is particularly so, in my opinion, in the three examples you cite.

  Six and a half years ago, when I was a new editor, I took Bbb to ANI and to Arbcom because he repeatedly accused me without evidence of being a sockpuppet. Before me, there was a long line of new editors who had similarly been

  bitten

  . After me, there was a long line of new editors who had similarly been bitten. During the ANI and Arbcom case request, lots of people recognized that this was an ongoing issue. Still, the majority of admins and arbs said that the problem wasn't Bbb, the problem was that I was complaining -- that I should just suck it up. A few years later, Bbb was de-CU'd by arbcom. Then, lots of people opined that Bbb should have been desysoped, because the person who abuses CU should not be allowed to block people. But they weren't desysoped by arbcom, and now look ... a bunch of bad blocks had to be overturned. We had to create a system (recall) in order to address not because there was no feedback, but because the powers that be -- other admins and arbs -- would not take any real enforcement action, despite repeated, frequent feedback over many years.

  In Graham's case it was the same thing. You'll recall I made the oppose vote in his RRFA where I collected quotes from all the previous times that he had received the same feedback, and all the times he promised to do better, and he didn't do better. There was no lack of feedback in Graham's case. Graham made bad blocks during the recall ... that means he made bad blocks while receiving feedback.

  Fastily was the same -- look at their recall petition and you'll see lots of links and diffs to previous discussions going back years and years. I signed that one and added more diffs of my own to the pile. There was lots and lots and lots of feedback, it was just ignored.

  If you ask me, the issue isn't lack of feedback, it's enabling. Admins (and arbs, who are all also admins) enable bad behavior from other admins by ignoring the feedback, by having double-standards.

  You see this right now in the Necro ANI, where the first comment is an admin making the rather nonsensical accusation that the OP was forum shopping. That's an example of admin enabling that actually interferes with the giving of feedback. Thankfully, several other admins have responded positively in that thread and encouraged the feedback. So it's not like all admins do the enabling--in fact, it's a distinct minority of admins, probably 10% or less. But enough admins do the enabling to make it so the feedback isn't heard, it's dismissed as sour grapes, vindictive editors, forum shopping, etc. Then when the enabling stops, the admin is surprised. But it's not because of lack of feedback, it's because the feedback is dismissed by some. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  We do have Wikipedia:Administrative action review; it can review one action or a set of actions, but to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It's deliberately not an RFC/U, which may give it a better chance of being constructive sometimes. I don't know whether or not it's ever changed an admin's longstanding practice. NebY (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I was opposed to triggering a recall with 25 mere-signatures. (note that I said "mere-signatures" not "merely 25"). Too low of a bar to toss an admin because even the best (just like many good potential admins) are likely to decline going through an individual RFA type process. But this has 25 substantial rationales given, not just 25 signatures. On a different note, we do have a systemic lack of course correction methods for admins. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  @North8000 The process doesn't call for 25 substantial rationales or even any rationales, it just calls for 25 signatures. If you don't like the process, suggest a change. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. This is the system we have because this is the system that could pass. If you think those 25 people were wrong, go to RfA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's not hard to find two people who have genuine, deeply held concerns about an admin; three axe-grinders; and then 20 people who don't really know what's going on but signed because they read what the first five people wrote (to which the admin has no right of reply before the voting starts) or they wanted to get themselves noticed or maybe they just think there's no smoke without fire. My suggestion would be to require a filer and an endorser to have directly discussed the issue with the admin and been unsuccessful. That should have been fairly easy for Fastily, Graham, or Bbb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There were repeated attempts to discuss all three of them on their actions over months, if not years. Both on their talk pages and on ANI/AN. None of those recall petitions came out of the blue. They were just an inevitable result that would otherwise have gone to Arbcom instead. Silverseren^C 22:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Which recall petition(s) do you think were signed by people who didn't really know what's going on but signed because they read what the first five people wrote or they wanted to get themselves noticed or maybe they just think there's no smoke without fire? If the answer is "none", why do you think it's not hard to find 20 people who would do such a thing?

  Which recall petition did not involve the admin replying? If the answer is "none", why do you say admins aren't afforded a reply? Levivich (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

My post was basically "just 25 mere signatures is not enough". 25 sets of knowlegable and thoughtful-looking rationales given is enough. My suggested change would be: "25 posts by people with knowledge of the situation where they explain their rationales." North8000 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant suggest a change in the appropriate place, not here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)