Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Whpq

El C's neutral

 * First neutral, ever. Oppose per FASTILY (bad nom) + support per Moneytrees (good nom) = neutral. Stop protesting!

El_C 14:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems peculiar that you're neutral based on the nominators and not the candidate themselves... All power to you? That Coptic Guy 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based. Wow, that sig is overpowering. El_C 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Helpful link: WP:BILLBOARD &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Noted... That Coptic Guy 16:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this reading right @El C, that you are not evaluating the candidate merely his nominators? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment. El_C 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C congrats on achieving the chaotic neutral vote 😅 I assume everyone else is either confused or playing along. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per bludgeoning. ~ 🐿️ El_C (he/him • talk) 14:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the vote rationale (and the vote in general) is just here for the sake of humor. If so, then the joke certainly flew over my head and I guess it's a me-issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just a tad silly. That Coptic Guy 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting take, but wrong. El_C 15:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd love to be enlightened, then! That Coptic Guy 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would, but not everything should be spoon-fed with neat little sugar cubes. El_C 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL... alright then. Whatever makes you feel better--no skin off my nose. That Coptic Guy 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude, must you? El_C 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be more direct: could you clarify your rationale, El C? On one hand, I'm not a fan of everyone jumping on opposes/neutrals; on the other, a venue that is inevitably very stressful for at least one person (and often more than one) generally isn't the best place for gleeful ambiguity. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at this time, no. El_C 16:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral doesn't affect the outcome, of course, so the only point in registering one is to communicate what you think of the candidate without supporting/opposing. But here you're going out of your way to refuse to communicate anything at all. This is -- dare I say -- an uncool vote. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment. El_C 17:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Rhododendrites. Seems a bit too WP:POINTy to me, even if the actual point is not clear... *shrug* –FlyingAce✈hello 18:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As a support !voter, this entire discussion strikes me as unnecessary, especially as this doesn't even affect the support percentage. El_C !voted neutral without giving an explanation and has refused to give one, but there are plenty of support !voters who gave no explanation. I think we should let this one go and enjoy the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The weekend is almost done, but honestly, I don't think FASTILY gives a shit what I think. El_C 18:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fairly uncommon that I reply to someone at RfA. The thing is, he did provide an explanation. It just happened to be a confusing bit of insinuation, with obscurantist game-playing as follow-up. Providing no explanation would have been an improvement IMO. YMMV. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fairly uncommon?" I have doubts. El_C 20:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, as a completely unaware and not involved third party, it looks like you hold a grudge against one of the nominators... Why use this against the candidate? If the candidate was nominated just by FASTILY, would you vote agaist the candidate? Best, Tymon. r  Do you have any questions?  19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I would not oppose on that basis. I wouldn't have neutral'd, either, if support for the candidate wasn't already overwhelming at the time of my submission. And I'll also reveal now of my intention all along of switching to support at the end, regardless, because I do think the candidate is worthy.
 * Unlike FASTILY, I take my opposes extremely seriously. I have opposed in an RfA probably less than 5 times in total, and I don't think more than once in the post-2010s. But as the nominator from last week to the nominator of this week, maybe I can get across, even if in a roundabout way, how participants like FASTILY make RfA such a toxic ecosystem. But now when they have an uncontroversial tech nominee, I'm supposed to play pretend? No thanks. I will WP:POINT out these gross disparities, even if it brings much ire upon me. El_C 19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So a textbook case of WP:POINT then. Understood. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, textbook, Jesus Christ. El_C 21:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Fastily was an early opposer at ScottishFinnishRadish's RFA,(With the rationale of I've reviewed a number of the candidate's early edits, and it's pretty clear this isn't their first account.I would like to see ScottishFinnishRadish be more forthcoming about their past editing history; that seems like it is the likely reason for EL_C's neutral vote here. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC) tq added to make the quote more obvious, feel free to revert if you really want it to be plain text. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct, Jackattack1597 (oppose diff). Using FASTILY as a prominent example, my problem is that there are essentially two facets of their recent contributions to RfA: the constructive one, such as this nomination. And the destructive one, like last week, when they cast aspersions on my nominee as a potential sock without evidence, and opposed on that basis (not that they were the only one). El_C 02:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * El C, this is embarrassing. If you can't take people opposing "your" nominee, including for—shock horror!—reasons you don't agree with, in good faith, maybe don't nominate people for RfA? It's an election not a confirmation. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember when former arbitrator Joe referred to me in that RfA as a member of The Cabal— I don't understand what making friends in the cabal means, current arbitrator Barkeep49 asked him (diff). Oh, but Joe wasn't referring to me, he later clarified when I shock horror'd (diff), but rather, some amorphous ether. I still think it doesn't track, but okay.
 * I also remember when another user opposed my nominee, because I, the nominator, had blocked them back in 2019, a block whose reasons I still do not recall, though the logs do show that TPA was revoked for a time soon thereafter (not by me). Oh well. Good (faith) times.
 * As for Joe positing to me: maybe don't nominate people for RfA? — I'll repeat yet again, and hopefully this time it'll resonate: that was my first and last RfA nomination. Thanks for bearing with me, everyone. El_C 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe everyone's out to get you and "your nominees" and then lying about it after the fact for... reasons. Or maybe people have different opinions on what makes a good admin and different experiences with candidates. I guess we'll never know. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Neither Fastily's oppose, nor El C's neutral, were "in good faith". They're two textbook examples of bad faith votes. Still, one bad faith vote shouldn't be met by another. Levivich (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My neutral was a protest, admittedly. Could I have expressed it better? Undoubtedly. El_C 14:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not very admin-y behavior. Fastily is an admin. El C is an admin. It sounds like a beef that El C has against Fastily. No idea what it's about, and I don't care. However, knowingly disrupting a RfA to push a personal agenda against another editor is disgraceful. My two cents. It's me... Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, within reason, editors are allowed to vote on idiosyncratic grounds. Now and then you get someone who will oppose if candidate doesn't have 10 GA's or some other personal rubric. Silly, but not madness. If I see a nomination by somebody who is a toxic editor or an enemy of the project, I'd be inclined to oppose on those grounds alone. Peremtory maybe, but not insane or moronic. El C is within his rights and it's fine. Anyway, idiosyncratic votes only matter when it's close anyway, and if it's close anyway, all the more reason to be hard on candidate. If it's a personal beef, enh. Assuming the beef is based on some reasonable ground, I'd allow it. Stop making a federal case of it. And as far as "Not adminy behavior", when admin tools aren't involved, you don't want to push that button too hard. Most things an admin says are implicitly backed up with "...and I can ruin your day". That's not the case here. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

, you are correct that editors are at an RFA. Conversely, other editors are "allowed" to take these editors to task for disruptive, off topic, pointy comments motivated by another recent RFA. I disagree with you that it is ever appropriate to be intentionally "hard" on a candidate, and your comment that  seems to me to be an endorsement of "kick them when they are down" behavior, which I see as a form of bullying. Isn't this the exact type of situation where a measure of kindness rather than hardness is called for? After all, any editor who is close in an RFA has pretty much by definition devoted a lot of time and effort for a long time to improving this encyclopedia. As for, I am deeply disappointed in their conduct, but it seems that they had a big fat point to make. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would caution against being too much of an apologist for this type of behavior. Admins do have the same rights as '"regular" editors; however, they are held to a higher standard. I have no doubt that you are already well aware of this. There is no "federal case" being made, and no objective person would think that. Other editors were legitimately asking why he made the neutral edit. El C, an administrator, was intentionally being aloof. This is a RfA. If there is a legitimate reason why other editors should consider the integrity of the nominator, we need to know. Is Fastily possibly making socks? Is the candidate a sock? Is Fastily biased in someway? Neutral "!votes" don't really matter, except to add extra information that might be relevant to the RfA. There was nothing relevant. It was painfully obvious that it was a personal vendetta of some kind. This is Wikipedia, not Twitter. As senior to the project as you are, you should know better. It's me... Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333's neutral
I should probably better explain my neutral. While Fastily has never done anything worth being dragged to ANI or Arbcom over (at least not by me), I have seen him clash with Iridescent a few times (eg: "" and "") and on several occasions I have seen an RfA comment along the lines of " Support Why not? Moved to oppose", which makes me question if Fastily is a good and thorough researcher. So, I spent yesterday trying to find reasons to oppose Whpq and found nothing, but just the fact I did that instead of the usual checking without any bias one way or the other, leads me to conclude I should just duck out of this RfA altogether and formally abstain (which, as I understand it, is what a neutral !vote is). It should imply I have no quarrels at all if, as I expect, the RfA passes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie333 To be clear, one of the reasons I thought Whpq would have a chance of passing was because I saw you had reached out to them about running in 2018. I see you've now changed to support, thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, Ritchie333's 2018 offer to nominate and Whpq's reply directly influenced my decision to ask that he run today. We currently have a shortage of admins in the file/copyright space and Whpq did say that he would run if the need arose.  While I am surprised that Ritchie333 doesn't trust my judgement, it's worth noting that I do trust his when it comes to vetting admin candidates.  Philosophically, I still believe (probably naively) that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL.  Do I perfectly espouse this value in my day-to-day editing?  Of course not.  None of us do.  But I'll certainly try my best.  The 3 things I look for when reviewing candidates: 1) editors whom I trust vouch for a candidate, 2) there is no significant opposition from editors I trust, and 3) a quick review reveals nothing unusual.  If these conditions are met, then it's "Support Why not?" from me.  I've never found spending hours peering through a candidate's history looking for reasons to oppose to be a productive use of time.  In fact, that's one of the very reasons cited by 5/6 editors who declined my recent offers to nominate them.  -  F ASTILY   19:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, the most important thing about admins is communication. As I wrote at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios, our policies about how we delete articles and images do not correspond with how most people think they would. I've been used to copyleft licences like GNU for years, so I get it, but I'm sure we've had people on here who upload an image without an appropriate licence, get an F7 notification whacked on their talk page, and they don't know what to do or who to turn to. It's kind of why I wrote that essay.
 * I wouldn't even say I don't trust Fastily's judgment, I just had a bit of an uneasy feeling, and it was that clashing with Iridescent that caused it. Might be worth the two of you having a quiet chat and resolving your differences. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair criticism. Historically, I've not been the best about communicating file/copyright concerns, so I totally understand why folks would feel this way; it's an area I've been actively trying to improve for the past several years.  Lately, I lean, dare I say... inclusionist.  Given my history, folks may be surprised to hear that I'll attempt fixing file issues before turning to deletion as a last resort.  That's right folks, we've come full circle (or maybe Fastily is just getting old 🙃).  By the way, nice essay, we should find a way to publicize that more.  I've been meaning to improve our copyright/file help pages so that they're ELI5.  The average editor currently doesn't understand any of it, so it just ends up being a terrible user experience when we tag their copyvios for deletion.  -  F ASTILY   00:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

None of that (and 'that' includes words on Whpq's RFA page as well) has anything to to with this particular request for adminship. From the beginning, elements of 'that' could have been expressed on user talk pages, on ScottishFinnishRadish's RFA, that RFA's talk page, that RFA's crat-chat's talk page, or on WT:RFA. None of it belongs here. Not only is it a distraction, it's also unfair to Whpq, to the other co-nominator of Whpq's RFA, and to the process. I think it should be hatted here, or otherwie moved somewhere else. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's 100-something to zero, and a neutral gets everyone's nose out of joint? I'd tell El C that it was an excellent troll, except RFA is so easy to troll I'm not sure it justifies a congratulations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how it was expressed or how you choose to frame it now, it was heartfelt, and it came from a place of pain. El_C 16:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so one of those "functionally indistinguishable from trolling" things then. We're amazingly susceptible to that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say to that. If you want to ridicule me, I'm certainly an easy target right now. El_C 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to say anything to that. I'm talking about how WP in general, and RFA in particular, can't seem to let go of 100/1/0 opposes, or (even more embarrassingly) 100/0/1 neutrals, or trolling (or what just looks like trolling) in general. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. El_C 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason why "'per FASTILY (bad nom)'" remains unstruck? GiantSnowman 19:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * For emphasis. El_C 19:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Gad, and I thought EEng was the master of théâtre de l'absurde. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's all be more considerate towards El C (as well as the nominee) and stop trying to get the last word in this discussion., I strongly urge you to retract that comment both as (what reads like) an unnecessary and snide insult to and because it contributes nothing at all to this RFA. It is clear to all of us that El C has personal issues with Fastily and it is in his right to mention them. We may not agree with the venue, the method, or the wording, but the worst possible action we can all take in response is to amplify their negative feelings by poking at them. What is there to gain?When we talk about the toxic atmosphere of RFA, we don't only mean comments against the nominee but also voters and nominators. Let's not add to the toxicity by seeking further discussion on the El C neutral vote. Let's let it go. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 09:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think both and  know me well enough to know hen I am kidding.  It was not snide remark  but a compliment as I have recognized for some time El C's skill at absurdist humor, and it is not an insult to recognize EEng as the (possibly past) master at absurdist humor., I love you as the father I should have had, and apologize if you feel the least slighted by what was meant as high praise. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * possibly past??? – Pistols at dawn, sir! Pistols at dawn! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, . I'm unfamiliar with y'all's relationship with each other so I read it as uncivil. Glad to know it's all in good spirit :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the gesture, you probably should have checked out my userpage before rushing to salve my hurt feelings. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That assumes that someone is able to load your userpage. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your mother wears army boots. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * EEng I have no idea what exactly within your userpage you would like me to check out as it is immensely long and with many sections. If there is something there hinting at good vibes with deepfriedokra, it's probably hard to find. In any case, sarcasm/jokes don't work well over the internet with strangers unless it is made explicit and based on the tone of the rest of the talk page I assumed the comment was not one. There's some essay about this but I forgot the name. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 15:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You might look at again at my page, bearing in mind this time DFO's theater-of-the-absurd point. Thanks for the tips on the social milieu of the internet. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

El C's support

 * 1) Moved from neutral. No opposition for lack of GAs from me, either (hey, I've none) — though, raise the double standard. Anyway, as I noted in my neutral comment (eventually), RfA participants like FASTILY represent the worst of the RfA ecosystem. They provide blasé and aspersion-laden (and heartless) opposes and go on like it's nothing. Zero consequences. No one even questions it. Last week was my first and only RfA nomination, which barely passed, and it'll certainly be my last. The reason it'll be my last are RfA participants like FASTILY, the nominator of this RfA. That said, this candidate seems qualified and I'm sure they'll make a good fit. Though again, I'm puzzled by how many only-two-GAs oppposes there were last week versus zero here (which, again, I hope it stays that way, as it is my view that that criteria is super-dumb). I don't think the candidate is a sock, either. El_C 22:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA is still a policy, and it applies to admins like yourself too. Furthermore, ranting about editors who view content creation as of central importance to admins isn't likely to convince us that we're wrong. You'll notice that I supported this RFA since Whpq has done a lot in the copyright area despite not meeting my criteria of 1 GA as I've mentioned above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA is still a policy — you don't say. But thanks for calling my statement a rant, I'm sure NPA will be glad (they're really nice). El_C 23:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, it's about the GA criteria, not FASTILY? Reaper Eternal, if we're doing tautology, you are the person (smart), not the criteria (dumb). Anyway, that was an aside to my point. El_C 23:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it wasn't about your criteria, specifically (which I haven't read) — it pertains to a broader view which contends that these arcane content processes are not necessarily representative of one's overall content contributions. I've contributed plenty of content, with serviceable and informative articles (I hope), without ever having engaged in the GA/FA.
 * Likewise, edit count on the main article space isn't necessarily representative of content contributions, either. As I noted in my own RfA (all the way back in 2005), I've made single edits that were hundreds, even thousands of words (proofread locally). I realize folks may find it simpler to just view that linearly by way of raw numbers, but that may well be folly. El_C 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that your post is a rant is not a personal attack. It's simply a statement of fact, not an attack on you as a person. Hell, I'm pretty sure all of us have, once properly fired up, posted rants on this site. On the other hand, calling Fastily "the worst of the RFA ecosystem" is a direct attack on them as a person. See the difference? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see it. You may think as you will, but when I had said that RfA participants like FASTILY represent the worst of the RfA ecosystem, I meant it and I stand by it. El_C 02:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that simply you saying that something is a "statement of fact" does not make it so. In my view, what I said was also a statement of fact. Now, I don't have much to add to this and will happily never comment on this page again. Unless there's more badgering, "fact"-based or otherwise. El_C 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So now we have one of our most high-profile admins making a blatant personal attack and then complaining about being badgered. Speaking of double standards, you wouldn't see a non-admin get away with this sort of behavior. El C, quit playing the victim when you're the one who disrupted this RfA to make a point because one of the nominators opposed your candidate last week. If you have an actual problem with Fastily's behavior at RfA, go open a thread somewhere. You have enough influence that you might even be able to do something about it. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss El C's conduct in this RFA, it is best that y'all wait for things to cool down. It is already clear to him that the less he says on this issue the better. If you really want El C to stop disrupting the RfA,, I don't understand why you're poking him with accusations of victim-playing. It is always best for everyone (especially the Wikipedia) to discuss uncivil behaviour once the temperature in the room has cooled down. Wait for the RFA to be over, even if it is just out of respect for Whpq's candidacy. The less opportunities you give for escalation of commitment, the sooner this whole thing washes away. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of pursuing the matter further, but thank you for your patronizing remarks. If I were to take your advice and try to discuss this with El C after the RfA ended, I imagine I would be sharply rebuffed for resurrecting a dead issue. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Open to recall
Why is this question asked so often at RfAs? I see 2 opposing because the nominee declined to be open to recall. Has an administrator been recalled in the past, or is it an imaginary concept with no real meaning? We already have WP:ADMINACCT and I'm not seeing where the importance in "admin recall" exists. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 09:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a question more suitable for the general RFA talk, which I will note already has a section about this matter. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It's still relevant to this discussion though, in my opinion. From what I know, admin recall doesn't currently exist as an operating function. Why ask a nominee if they would be open to doing something that doesn't exist? <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 09:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked a general question, hence my reply. People are allowed to ask whatever questions they want to determine whether the candidate meets their personal support criteria. Recall does exist, but it is somewhat of nonentity given its lack of use or implementation. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nythar I find it annoying/inappropriate to ask in individual RfA's, but it's an admittedly effective way to advocate for a policy change, by bringing it up in highly visible forums that have possibility of swaying voters. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RECALL exists, it's a real thing, it just hasn't been used in a long time (~10 years I think), and my belief is that this is because it's voluntary, and the particular admins who might be recalled have not listed themselves in the category (overall, most admins are not listed, but many if not most recent admins are). Some editors will oppose based on this, some just won't support, for some it's just one factor among many to consider, and some don't care at all. That's why people ask the question, so voters can take it into consideration if they want to. Levivich (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no correct answer to an RfA recall question, except perhaps to ignore the question altogether. Answering the users' questions as well as posing them is optional - one can't punish someone for not doing something that's not wrong. Recall is neither a policy nor even a guideline. It is purely voluntary and in general it is hardly ever used; if enough editors just don't like an admin, they'll make something up and go straight for the jugular. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've seen candidates say they would be open to recall get opposed because: recall is BS, so the candidate is pandering. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on what I posted which was: "BTW, noting the first opposes, I read the "open to recall" question as "are you willing to be subjected to a particular drama fest just because one person asks for it and because you said "yes" in the RFA"?.  And I think that their answer was a fine one". I think that folks that require a "yes" answer are looking at it as a general principle and a general attitude / outlook that they expect out of a candidate. And I agree with them on that. But I read the question in terms of the mechanics of what happens in Wikipedia and IMHO described that in my post. Expanding on my comment, I'm strongly in favor of more accountability for admins. Probably 98% of what is needed doesn't exist now which is the process to give some more routine review / critiques and course corrections which carry weight. IMHO focusing only on desysop situations distracts from fulfilling that unmet need. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion and they can vote how they like, but the nominee could easily change their mind and not agree to a recall even if they previously said they were open to doing so (see Administrators open to recall "at any time, administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings, despite previously being open to recall.") Not quite effective, this. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 20:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey North, just wanted to note that I really appreciate your perspective and assumption of good faith here - You're right that I treat it more as a general principle/outlook/attitude/whatever. I'm reevaluating whether that necessitates a candidate have commitment to recall, but I just am not convinced that a rejection of the recall process has any real impact on drama given the alternatives. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 04:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the last RFA, if we are to follow the analysis of the majority of the CratChat, if a reason offered to oppose is not a requirement for adminship, it is illegitimate and should be ignored. This, by that logic, willingness or unwillingness to agree to recall is not a legitimate objection, and should be ignored. And, if we follow the logic of some, such votes should not merely be ignored, they should be labeled as toxic and made in bad faith. Not saying I agree, just making an observation.Banks Irk (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the whole CratChat yet but I hope that isn't the big takeaway from it, because there are no requirements for adminship in policy besides having an account. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 04:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just a willful reading of the CratChat and RFA, . The issues discussed in that RFA and also why a number of editors insist on recall criteria are more complex than just binary requirements to adminship. As Thadeus said, there are indeed no requirements for adminship except those needed to give you the tools (i.e. an account). By your logic, all non-support comments and votes at an RFA outside the nomination/acceptance would be "toxic and made in bad faith". Hiding behind the logic of unnamed "some" is confusing and unhelpful. To my knowledge such absolutist perspective does not exist at all. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 08:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's true there's no enforcement process. I think that two reconfirmations have gone all the way thru to the end. Both had the admin losing, but in one of them, the admin just flat refused to step down anyway. (Her rationale that the complaint was against her general behavior and attitude rather than misuse of the tools specifically, and she hadn't envisioned being recalled for that. But she could have made up another reason, or no reason.)

I actually did create an enforcement process. I mean, as a discussion point. I put a lot of work and thought into and I think it was reasonable and workable, or the basis for something reasonable and workable. I grandfathered out all current admins, for obvious political reasons. I figured that if anyone was qualified to do this, it would be me. Even so, it was made clear to me, by someone with some clout in the admins corps, that there never can or will be a reconfirmation (recall) process with teeth in this world or the next. The admin corps isn't going to allow it. And if I didn't shut up about it, I was going to be squeezed out of the project, which I don't want.

But, I mean, even if its obvious that... lets say gay marriage... will never be legal in your state, it's still legit to ask your legislator if he support it or not. I think "You can't even bring this subject up" or "If you vote for this, your vote will be ignored" would be a good look. Same here.

So anyway... since we can't have enforcement you the have the objection Well it's just kabuki, an admin can be like Oh I changed my mind, and a bad admin of poor character would be just the person to do this. So asking the question is just nonsense, and nonsense is trollery. That's a fair point. It's still legit to ask IMO tho. At least make the candidate go thru the proper motions. Let the candidate at least pretend that they consider that they serve at the pleasure of the community. If they won't they're pretty bad at basic politics, and that's big red flag generally. And it's something to point to if the person breaks bad, anyway. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)