Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Other discussions

[edit]

Recall petitions for absent admins

[edit]

While I think it would be less contentious and more efficient for the community to devise stricter activity standards than to discuss absent admins one-by-one, I appreciate there may be some difficulty in reaching agreement on what standards to set. In the meantime, though, I suggest that commenters be judicious about using the term "gaming the system". I think there's a connotation that gaming the system is an intentional act of sabotage, while I think many absent admins are just being overly optimistic about one day resuming activity on Wikipeida. I feel it would be less antagonistic to focus on the community's desire for active admins, rather than to speculate on the motivations of absent admins. isaacl (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we want stricter activity requirements for admins, we should set them via consensus, instead of doing an end run around that RFC via recalls. If, on the other hand, an administrator is adhering to the letter, but not the spirit of our inactivity policy, recalling them can be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I said I think we should set the activity requirements by consensus, and I understand why a recall petition could be a reasonable approach for specific cases. I feel, though, that discussion within such a petition can proceed more effectively by focusing on the admin's pattern of behaviour, without any connotations related to motivation. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think the admins who have been recalled due to inactivity should still be admins. But this less-than-one-day recall blitz just feels wrong, even if I can't clearly articulate exactly why. I don't know how we could force it to be a more leisurely process, but for inactive admins there is, by definition, no rush. I missed one day, and saw the announcement that the recall succeeded before I ever saw the announcement that it had been opened. Do we really not want to give people the opportunity, at least, to try to convince supporters to reconsider? It seems like a possibly correct outcome (in this case) has been achieved in a pretty roughshod way. All the recall supporters just seem so angry about someone following the rules. "Gaming the system" = "following the written policy" I guess. Yes, changing the policy would be more honest. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl:"gaming the system" does not mean sabotage, it means using loopholes or manipulating the rules to one's advantage or technically following the rules to the mininum while violating their spirit. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I was describing the connotations of the term, which implies a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. Personally, I think focusing on the behaviour rather than whether or not it was deliberate would avoid unnecessary confrontational language. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Floq, and I expressed this firmly and repeatedly in the Master Jay petition (and would have done in the Gimmetrow petition had I seen it before it closed). I see at least four possible ways (that are not mutually-exclusive) to amend the recall process to resolve this issue:
  1. Require recent discussion with the administrator about the specific issue(s) that form the basis of the petition at the admin's talk page and/or a community noticeboard to be at least attempted before a petition can be opened.
  2. Require the administrator to have been active within the last (period) before the petition is opened.
  3. Nobody other than the initiator or subject admin may sign or comment on a petition until the earlier of (a) the subject administrator unambiguously acknowledging (on en.wp) that the petition has been initiated; or (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition.
  4. The petition must remain open for a minimum length of time, regardless of the number of signatures gathered, before it can be closed as successful (petitions may be withdrawn or snow-closed at any time).
Administrator recall petitions should be explicitly about non-urgent situations (for urgent situations, go to ArbCom) and inactive administrators are not urgent situations. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Floq and Thryduulf have said. In particular, I think that more time should pass between the filing of the petition, and when signatures other than the signature of the filing editor can start to be added. It does not have to be a lot of time, but I can envision problems in the future if the petition gets enough signatures to pass, or close to enough, before editors have had enough time to think about both sides of the question. (Alternatively, I guess the number of signatures required could be significantly increased.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this some more, I'll say in defense of the editors who used the phrase "gaming the system" that they substantiated that claim by noting things such as the admin having promised to be more active, and then not keeping that promise. I looked back at the petition page, and I don't think anyone said that in bad faith. On the other hand, I think there's an excellent case to be made that there should have been sufficient time for editors to examine the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument. To some extent, editors repeated the phrase "gaming the system" without there being breathing space for anyone to dispute the term, a pattern that follows what often happens in social media – not a good thing for us to knowingly emulate. As the recall system was being developed, the argument was made that the petition should simply be a petition, and that the discussion would come only when the reconfirmation RfA took place (a way of thinking about it that was imported from the German language Wikipedia). At this point, I think it's becoming apparent that this approach does not fit comfortably with the culture of WP:Consensus here at the English language Wikipedia. We haven't yet had a petition that was initiated in bad faith, but there can always be a first time. Our policies set a minimum amount of time that a community ban proposal at AN or ANI must stay open, before it can be enacted (even if the consensus is clear before then), and I think we should move in that direction for admin recall as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with examining the pattern of behaviour and evaluating potential future behaviour in that light. But to be fair, lots of editors start out with plans to work on some volunteer initiative, and then lose focus shortly afterwards. I think it's fine for the community to say that it wants admins who are reasonably active, without speculating on what motivates them. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of feels like the system is working fine if we keep getting correct results. We block new users all the time for gaming the system to get around protections. This is no different. Also I don't really see an enforced minimum time to have much of an effect or benefit for anyone. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RRfA is literally the place for the person to put their argument and reasoning on why they should retain the bit. That is that location. The recall petition is not actually the place for that. If the editor feels that they wouldn't be able to provide an appropriate explanation or reasoning in the RRfA, then they are free to decide not to file it and essentially resign the bit by doing so. That is their decision. SilverserenC 21:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding, "the recall succeeded before I ever saw the announcement" - that's not quite a complete picture. In this example, the actual recall discussion hasn't begun, only a check that the concern isn't completely frivolous has been agreed to by 25 established editors. The petition check is not meant to be a debate, or a consensus building exercise - it is a check to avoid wasting the time of the recall target, and the community at large. The target of the recall has 30 days to start the actual recall discussion at their convenience. This process is still fairly new, if we start getting recalls that show they are a waste (by having the targets pass the recalls) - I think that would be a good time to revisit the opening criteria. — xaosflux Talk 20:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate people would like to discuss other aspects of the recall petition process (I would too). Perhaps, though, it can be done in its own thread? isaacl (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New editors are indeffed for gaming the system because experience tells us that such contributors will be highly disruptive. By contrast, an old timer who did good work for Wikipedia ten years ago and who now likes to hang on to their badge by following the minimum requirements is highly unlikely to be a problem. If they become a problem, they will be removed by Arbcom if it's an emergency or by recall otherwise. What benefit would arise from having busy bodies look for minimum-activity admins? Interface admins should be policed because their account could cause significant trouble if compromised, but a regular admin can't even delete the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've had many, many cases of admins who hadn't done any real admin work in years or even decades jumping back into things like bannings and other activity and doing a terrible, horrible job. Frequently leading to them being directly de-sysopped by the community and Arbcom. Because their lack of admin activity also meant they hadn't kept up with policies and expectations from the community in such activities. We refer to them as legacy admins (or at least when using the term in this context) to represent that they are admins in name only, but would likely not come anywhere close to passing an RfA today. SilverserenC 04:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So elevate the minimum requirements. What is deeply unpleasant is the idea that contributors who once did good work should be hunted down. I would be sympathetic if the complaint concerned reducing the number of admins to avoid damage from compromised accounts. If people really want to pursue stragglers, the inactivity requirements should be re-written to emphasize the security risk as that would give a dignified rationale for removal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they are great contributors and the community clearly got it wrong with the recall they would sail through RFA. I don't think tweeting the activity requirement just so will ever be as effective as people just looking into it and making a judgement call. Silver is right here. PackMecEng (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Johnuniq here. I find the argument that it's OK to put someone who used to do good work through the experience of a recall petition, on the theory that all will be made right once they supposedly sail through a new RfA, um, unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if we had a single example of the recall process being incorrect thus far and forcing someone into an RRfA that they then easily pass again. That hasn't happened. So, despite all the groaning about this process, it appears to function exactly as desired by the community that approved it in the first place. SilverserenC 23:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Groaning? If I'm groaning, it's because I see people showing a lack of sensitivity to other human beings. There's an old saying, about past performance not being a predictor of future results. We shouldn't have to wait for a provably bad petition, to fix things that are easily fixable. I agree that the process has worked pretty well so far, if judged by the outcomes. Actually better than I expected, and I'm happy to admit that. I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. Or, more immediately, that a good admin who made some mistakes but who would pass a new RfA won't just decide, screw this, I'm out of here, and we lose someone unfairly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least thus far, it seems that getting 25 extended confirmed editors to agree on the unsuitability of an editor as an admin isn't something that happens lightly or easily. And only occurs in cases where there is general agreement on the question. It seems that if we allowed such petitions to continue on with signatures even after the threshold was met, they would likely end up much higher in signatories, especially when it comes to these inactivity related ones. And having a minimum of 25 long-standing editors in agreement that they would oppose an RRfA makes it at least somewhat unlikely that such an RRfA would pass. Generally, I feel that if an admin completely disagrees with the petition and thinks they do good work and that the community would agree with them, then they would do the RRfA. Particularly when they can have other editors be their co-nominator (and even have several editors do so). So, again, I don't see evidence, at least for now, of there being any chilling effect on someone making and then passing an RRfA after a recall petition. If there was even one example to reference and discuss, then there would be more of an argument and conversation to have. There just isn't right now. SilverserenC 23:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can partially agree that, so far, there hasn't been a petition about anyone where it was clearly inappropriate. For the most part, I have felt that these admins should have been removed. But I think the empirical evidence so far contradicts your first sentence, that getting 25 signatures "isn't something that happens lightly or easily." The pattern has been that we reach 25 in about a day or so. I'm not assuming that anyone signs "lightly", but as for "easily", that doesn't strike me as particularly difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, it's easy for me to picture a situation where an admin who does good work and is generally well-respected does something that pisses off a particular group of EC editors. In the first day or two of the petition, there are 25 signatures, along with a lot of comments objecting to the petition, and arguing strongly that the petition is unfair. That admin might, perhaps, agree to a new RfA and pass it fairly easily, although there would be opposes from those 25, along with other opposes from editors who figure that if there's smoke there must be fire. But that admin might just decide to pack it in, and leave. That's human nature. (I kind of wonder if that's sort-of what happened with Fastily, but we'll never know.) I'm not arguing that we should trash the recall process, but I disagree with the knee-jerk opposition to tweaking it, to make it better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we can imagine a lot of situations on both sides. We can only go by facts and data. Also I am not really a fan of well it's not perfect so lets not do it. Lets address issues as they arise and move on from there. Bemoaning fictional situations is not particularly helpful. Won't someone think of the children. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just got through saying: "I'm not arguing that we should trash the recall process, but I disagree with the knee-jerk opposition to tweaking it, to make it better." How that leads to "let's not do it" and opposing "address issues as they arise" is quite a feat of illogic. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem with what you said was painting all who disagree with you as a knee-jerk opposition rather than the evidence based conclusion it actually is. That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric is not helpful to productive discussion.
The perfect comment was in response to yours above I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. It's just a silly ask, there is no perfect catch-all. But based on community consensus and every case so far its pretty good. Lets not tweak something working well based solely on vibes as you are suggesting here. PackMecEng (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point, about my having said "knee-jerk". But what you call "a silly ask" was me making a rhetorical point, not an ask. And it should be obvious that all I have been saying here has been in terms of making suggestions about improving the process, based on experience so far. Primarily, I've said that I think the process should be made slightly slower, to allow slightly more time for discussion. When that gets misrepresented as my having said "so let's not do it", which I take to mean that I supposedly said let's not have any more recall petitions, then I have some justification in feeling like editors are taking the position that the process should not be improved in any way. That's not me being hyperbolic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a misrepresentation given your hyperbolic statement of I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. But lets not get distracted by such nonsense. Given the recalls that you have seen do you see extra time changing anything tangible with the outcomes? Because that is what I keep coming back to, it seems like a chance for the sake of change rather than something that would make an impact. Perhaps you could fill me in on what I am missing. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm all in favor of not getting distracted by nonsense. I've already explained what you are asking me to explain. I've gone out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point you are simply WP:Sealioning. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs down icon When you don't have a cogent argument and you resort to personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I guess the truth hurts. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I am detecting is a profound lack of faith in the RfA process. Instead of fiddling with the recall process, for which there is no evidence that the process is not working well, maybe we would be better off concentrating on making RfA easier and less stressful to pass. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before recall was introduced, one of the arguments of those in favour was an expectation that its mere existence would (somehow) improve RfA. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just seeing this thread now; my thoughts as the filer of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow. I would absolutely oppose editors actively going through Special:ListAdmins, finding people whose activity they are unhappy with, and then filing recall petitions. It's simply not kind to the living, breathing humans who are at the other end of the screen. I knew about Gimmetrow from reading the resysop discussion at BN back in 2023, and was reminded of them when I came across {{PPR}} while cleaning up opaquely-named templates (TFD notification). I was again brought to their talk page when I came across Wikipedia:BRRRRRD (I can't remember how I found that one). This wasn't my looking for someone to make an example of.
I (obviously) think "gaming the system" is a supportable allegation regarding Gimmetrow (a single logged admin action less than an hour before being desysopped, a single edit less than a week before being desysopped for inactivity). I guess mentally, "gaming the system" was not necessarily "bad faith editing". I don't think your garden-variety editor seeking (extended/auto)confirmed is here in bad faith, or wants to cause harm. But it is clear that gaming carries that implication for many people, and I am sincerely sorry, to the community and especially Gimmetrow, that my accusation of gaming carried more implications than I thought it did.
My "problem" with Gimmetrow's inactivity was that it demonstrably led to them being outside of community expectations surrounding the mop (the three-hour block for slurs). If it was just the gaming, I would've dropped my note and left it at that. Security and familiarity with community expectations and norms are the "why" behind why INACTIVITY, and I think a focus on pure numbers is missing the forest for the trees. Yes, they met the numbers we spelled out at WP:INACTIVITY. No, they are not active (in any non-Wikipedia-related sense of the term) and the only time they used the mop in the past decade, it required another admin to clean up after them.
I also think there is difference between "recall for inactive admins" and "recall for inactive admins who were desysopped, got the mop back after persuading the 'crats that they would returned to activity, and then did not meaningfully do so". (Both Master Jay and Gimmetrow fall into the latter category.)
Thoughts about more general reform: I do wish the petition was open for longer, especially to give Gimmetrow had a meaningful opportunity to respond to the petition. I'd support a "must be open for at least [reasonable timeframe]" (unless withdrawn, or it has met the threshold and the admin asks for it to be closed as such). I'd oppose a "the admin must be active in the last [reasonable timeframe]" restriction, because that encourages filers to avoid giving the admin time to respond to any warnings and admins to simply go dark, which is the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging for both parties. Ditto with a "the admin must acknowledge the recall effort for it to proceed" restriction: that drives a stake straight through the heart of ADMINACCT. I also think the petition requirement is not fit for purpose. It was meant to ensure what reaches the actual discussion, RRfA, was not vexatious. It has become a mini-RfA—without the support for the candidate/admin which takes the edge off of opposition—and I don't think I have words to describe how terrible that is. Saying "get consensus at AN(I)" is the obvious alternative, but I'm not sure whether mini-RfA or AN(I) is more shitty. I'd be interested if others have their own thoughts, especially if there is a third idea. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with a "the admin must acknowledge the recall effort for it to proceed" restriction: that drives a stake straight through the heart of ADMINACCT. That suggestion was to require explicit acknowledgement within 24 hours of their first edit after being notified, with the petition opening fully if that does not happen. I genuinely don't understand why you think that is not in accordance with ADMINACCT? We cannot expect people to respond before they aware there is something they need to respond to, and we cannot reasonably expect people to respond instantly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misunderstanding what you wrote. Say admin123 stops editing just after doing something recall-worthy. They get brought to ANI, and fail to respond. Then a recall petition is opened. Nobody other than the initiator or subject admin may sign or comment on a petition until the earlier of (a) the subject administrator unambiguously acknowledging (on en.wp) that the petition has been initiated; or (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition. If they don't edit, then they obviously haven't acknowledged it, and they haven't edited 24 hours after the first notification. Thus, I don't see (a) or (b) as satisfied, blocking recall. If we change (b) to (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition. that would address my concerns. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would allow someone to be recalled when they are completely unaware of a petition against them, denying the opportunity to speak in their own defence. Potentially they could be desysopped because they didn't initiate an RFA they didn't know they needed to initiate. Recall is never urgent, it can wait until they return to editing - an admin who is not editing is not causing any problems that removing their admin bit can solve. If they consistently game the system such that they wait until the petition expires, make a small number of edits until someone files a recall petition, then goes inactive again until that petition expires, then take them to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take them to ArbCom and say what? That they are evading a recall petition? Remember, a recall petition does not necessarily mean that they have done something that ArbCom would normally take any action over. Whereas if the petition succeeds, they get a whole month to file a RRFA. And you're saying that a month is not long enough to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that a month is not long enough to satisfy ADMINACCT and I'm genuinely puzzled how you got that meaning. Consider the following scenario:
  • User:Example, an admin, does something user:Foo considers worthy of starting a recall petition about (this could be something egregiously bad or simply disagreeing with someone about something controversial). The petition may be initiated minutes or days after what User:Example did.
  • User:Example gets busy at work, or goes on holiday, or gets ill, or needs to attend to a family crisis, or ... so they don't have chance to log in to Wikipedia for an extended period
  • Meanwhile 25 people sign the petition (the amount of people who see the petition but do not sign, if any, is irrelevant - there could be 250 people opposing the petition). This could take less than a day.
  • User:Admin is desysopped because they don't start an RFA within 1 month.
  • User:Example logs in to find they have be desysopped, completely unexpectedly.
If user:Foo went straight to recall without attempting to discuss matters with user:Example (which they are presently permitted to do) then there has been no failure of ADMINACCT.
If there was an attempt at discussion but no recall was initiated, there was a technical breach of ADMINACCT but (absent evidence that they were intentionally avoiding scrutiny of their actions) this would not be held against them because it was clear to all concerned that they were not aware that anybody was seeking to hold them account about something.
Take them to ArbCom and say what? if you are unable to articulate why you think someone should be desysopped then you should not be seeking to have them desysopped (which is what starting a recall petition is). Arbcom's remit includes dealing with administrator conduct issues the community is unable to resolve. If someone is gaming the recall system then the community is unable to resolve the issue that way, and there are no other ways than arbcom to resolve administrator conduct issues significant enough to desysop someone over. If you don't think someone should be deysopped then you should not be starting a recall petition against them. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take them to ArbCom and say what? What I meant was, do you go to ArbCom and file a complaint about gaming the recall system or one based on the reason you were trying to file a recall petition in the first place? ArbCom may not take the case, as there is no evidence that the former rises to a desysop offence, or that the latter is a matter that the community has been unable to resolve (although you can argue that a recall petition is how the community resolves issues like this). And of course at ArbCom, there is the chance that the arbs will go after you instead. But once the recall petition succeeds, user:example has a whole month to file an RFA. Now, I have complete sympathy with users going dark; I know of editors who have been shipped to Iraq, or have been fighting bush fires all summer. But user:example can always go to ArbCom, which can restore their admin bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom may not take the case, as there is no evidence that the former rises to a desysop offence If the appropriate and desired outcome is not a desysop then a recall petition is completely inappropriate.
or that the latter is a matter that the community has been unable to resolve If you don't have evidence of trying and failing to resolve the problem by means other than recall, then your recall petition is premature at best. If you do have that evidence then you have evidence for ArbCom.
And of course at ArbCom, there is the chance that the arbs will go after you instead. if you are worried about this then consider whether you are the editor whose conduct is inappropriate. If you have clean hands then there is nothing to worry about.
But once the recall petition succeeds, user:example has a whole month to file an RFA See my previous comment where I explicitly address this.
But user:example can always go to ArbCom, which can restore their admin bit this assumes that user:example (a) knows this, (b) user:example has not been drive away from the project, and (c) ArbCom consider the situation an appropriate one to overturn the wishes of the community. Regarding point (c) - if the consensus in this discussion is that no changes to recall are needed then it would be reasonable for ArbCom to conclude that the community wants such editors to be desysopped and so decline to reinstate. User:Example could of course just stand for RFA afresh, but why should they have to go through a week of hell because of a broken system? Thryduulf (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose that my petition reads, in part: "ArbCom failed to deal with this, so I am initiating a recall petition." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will depend why ArbCom did not take any action:
  • ArbCom determined the dispute was premature. Either you should be trying something other than recall (it's likely that a desysop is not the most appropriate action) or you will have evidence that additional attempts to resolve the issue have been tried and have failed.
  • AbrCom decided that the admin wasn't the one at fault and/or that a desysop was not justified based on the evidence presented. Most likely you should be dropping the stick.
  • ArbCom did take action, but it has failed to resolve the dispute. If you have evidence of this and of trying and failing to resolve it since the ArbCom case, then going back to ArbCom is fine (see all the cases with names ending "2").
Whatever the reason though, if the admin is not editing they are almost certainly not causing harm and so things can wait until they either return to editing or get desysopped for inactivity. In the unlikely event they are causing harm while not editing, this is going to involve some non-public evidence meaning ArbCom is the only appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall&oldid=1288807284"