Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a recall petition. Please do not modify it.

Fastily

[edit]

Petition certified. 25 signatures of extended confirmed editors were gathered in time.—Alalch E. 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily (talk · contribs · they/them)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Numerated (#) signatures in the "Signatures" section may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "Discussion" section.

Signatures

[edit]
  1. per WP:ADMINACCT.
    In the ongoing ANI thread, it's been demonstrated that Fastily has a history of using their admin powers to remove drafts they believe have been created by editors with a conflict of interest. While it's true that many of these subjects are non-notable, or the draft is so poorly written as to be eligible for a G11, Fastily has instead chosen to decline G11s, bypass our normal methods of deletion for questionable userspace content and use the vague, one could say slightly opaque and unquestionable, U5. In fact, since regaining their tools in 2016 they have rarely if ever used anything but U5. While this isn't really a big deal (we all have slightly different ways of interpreting the CSD criteria), their response when other people ask them about it,(you're wasting your time[1]) or ask them to be more precise in their deletions, is concerning.
    Fastily has made clear that they believe the ends justify the means. Or, to use their own words Sure, I could edit the exact reasons, but that wouldn't change the end result. [2][3][4]. But I suppose that's not a completely irrational world-view. It's common. So long as they respond politely to people who question those deletions, it should all be good, right?
    And ironic that you're advocating for this page given that you yourself have doubts about the subject's notability[...]get off my talk page[5].
    Fastily has taken on a noble task in their attempts to remove spam and undisclosed paid editing. But they've taken an overzealous approach- an approach which runs the risk of driving off good-faith newbies, and an approach which has seemingly led them to feel justified in ignoring WP:ADMINACCT by writing off any concerns from their fellow admins and editors as abuse[6] from people looking to pick a fight[7].
    Now I know many of our policies have changed since Fastily first became an administrator, back in '09. I'm not looking to penalise anybody based off a misunderstanding of our esoteric-slash-dynamic deletion policy. But, like I said, Fastily's understanding of accountability has been a few standard deviations outside of community norms for a very long time. Taking a quick trip down memory lane reveals that they've been brought to ANI at least half a dozen times for the way they used their tools, especially as it related to unilateral deletion:
    Looking through the above threads, especially the 2012 ones, will reveal that Fastily is not always wrong. They might not always be right- but that's irrelevant. What's more concering is how they respond when people questioned their actions.
    Fastily sometimes admitted they'd made mistakes, but more often they've prematurely archived the thread, called the other arguments stupid [8], accused people of attacking them/acting in bad faith [9][10], claimed that the only recognition I receive for my efforts are spurious trips to AN[11], or (as in the 2010 ANI thread and the second 2012 ANI thread), just failed to respond. The ANI threads stopped when Fastily resigned their tools. (To be clear: this wasn't under a cloud. The sanctions, tbans, and RFC/U floated in the [12][13] ANI threads hadn't actually gone anywhere).
    However, these ANI threads were all still a decade ago, and ideally irrelevant. That is, they would be irrelevant, had Fastily not resumed the exact same behaviour. Their historical pattern of refusing to understand WP:ADMINACCT just removes any excuse they could have for their modern day refusal to abide by it (or possibly understand it?).
    I believe that, at this time, an R-RfA is needed to establish whether or not they still have the community's trust. Because, to be quite frank, when two individual editor raise concerns about your editing and you respond saying Ok that's utter nonsense and you know it, accusing them of canvassing, conclude by saying your inability to understand the issue is not my problem?[14]. That's an issue. The fact that they view this behvaiour as patient and cordial[15] is troubling. And, as editors pointed out back in 2012, AN/ANI couldn't solve this before. [16][17]. The modern thread has already started to detour into the history of American presidential elections. Why should we expect it to get back on track now?
    I know this comment has been long. I'm sorry about that. If anybody needs a TL;DR, then I'll leave them with this last comment, made by Fastily themselves in today's ANI thread.
    Having fun twisting the narrative there? I suppose this will also be a shock to you: baseless accusations of bad faith aren't constructive feedback. I've been both patient and cordial with you, yet you have exclusively responded with vitriol and hostility. Well cool, I'll do the same, or wait, it's only okay when you get to be the one that does it huh. I called you out on it above and I guess that stings because it's the truth. Here's some friendly advice, don't run around throwing stones at others' houses when you live in a glass house yourself.[18]
    So yeah. Per WP:ADMINACCT. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their 2016 re-sysop request is certainly an interesting read.
    In 2012 I attempted to take on a massive volume of work, more work than I could comfortably handle, which ultimately resulted in lower quality contributions and burnout. I won't be making that same mistake again.
    And yet it did.
    Also, technically out of scope on enWiki, but their 2015 Commons de-sysop feels relevant. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary of their Commons de-sysop, for anybody interested:
    • On 19 May 2015, Fastily was blocked indefinitely for "abuse of administrator tools". Within a minute, the block was amended to 1 week.
    • [19] A thread was opened on AN/U (Commons's version of ANI) to discuss whether the block was appropriate. There wasn't a clear consensus as to whether the block of Fastily was appropriate or not, but there was consensus that Fastily should run for a confirmation RfA. After Fastily made comments like these: [20][21]. (These comments are very similar in tone to the ones they made at ANI the other day).
    • Fastily agrees to run for a confirmation RfA and is unblocked.
    • The re-confirmation RfA starts. Fastily is apologetic for their actions in the past, and specifically apologises for offending people. There is pretty overwhelming consensus that Fastily has been hostile, unwilling to listen/respond to criticism(see the lynch mob comment), and has moved too quickly in areas like deletions. However, consensus was not unanimous- many people pointed out to the large amount of deletions Fastily had done, and argued that that becase Fastily was prolific, they did not want to desysop them.
    • Fastily withdraws their request and retires with a message accusing other editors of participating in the contagious witch-hunt mentality of the community.
    Yes, this was a long time ago - but if anything, that makes it even more disappointing that they've chosen to carry on with their behaviour here, on enWiki.
    For a summary of the BN re-sysop:
    • Fastily requests the tools back in late 2016.
    • There is a lot of discussion by editors and bureaucrats about whether they had resigned under a cloud. There's consensus that, while not technically under a cloud, this was due to the fact that there had been no active arbcom case or RF/U. However, one 'crat does end up saying that At the time Fastily resigned, it seems to me that there was enough evidence for someone to have filed a serious complaint with ArbCom and another says it was under half a cloud, so there's clearly wasn't unanimous consensus.
    As I pointed out above, Fastily also made a promise to the community that they'd slow down, and I think we can all see how well they kept to their word. The entire AN/I thread, and these two diffs in particular[22][23], lay out a pretty convincing argument that they didn't.
    I know there have been a lot of concerns that this is pre-mature, and that I should have let the AN/I thread finish another round of spelling out exactly what Fastily may and may not do. I guess though, when it comes down to it, I do not believe Fastily's apology is worth anything. It could be- but it hasn't been in the past. So- and this isn't rhetorical, I'd love an answer - what's different now? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. They run a script to batch delete per U5 ([24]), leading to inevitable problems. SerialNumber54129 14:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this meant to be a signature to support the petition, or meant to be included in the discussion @Serial Number 54129? My 2 cents is that I read that as they review U5 noms as a batch, not to batch delete them per se, but I could be wrong. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: Well, Iridescent pretty much formed my thinking sometime ago: "since (with the exception of the abusive admins who run "delete all" scripts on CAT:CSD) an admin needs to read every single page tagged for deletion and in each case consider if there's a viable alternative to deletion, and the time that takes adds up very quickly". This is time that is not, I believe, being spent: a glance at a few U5 deletions on 3 Nov shows three in one minute ([25], [26], [27]) and four in another ([28], [29], [30], [31]), and how about ten a minute ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). Considering the extra consideration that ought to be going into U5 deletions... I'm just not seeing it. SerialNumber54129 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that you meant to vote in this instance. I'll have a take a look to better understand what they meant by the batching process. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I review pages manually in browser tabs before using a script to batch delete eligible pages. Yes, it may appear in the logs that I've deleted 10 pages in 2 seconds, but what you don't see reflected in the logs is the 15 mins I spent prior reviewing said pages. -Fastily 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't agree with every point Serial makes here, but I do think that RRFA is warranted here. Speedy deletion is an area where admins should be conservative in their use of tools, because non-admins cannot see deleted materials. If they wish to use said tool in a manner not clearly sanctioned by policy, they should ask for reform at WT:CSD, not misuse their privileges. I am not opposed to the occasional WP:IAR deletion where a good reason is given, but this is a consistent pattern of overstepping. Mach61 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Noting that GreenLipstickLesbian wrote nearly everything above and so you are most likely agreeing with them not SN. I have tried adjusting the indenting to make this a bit more clear). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ([42] - immediately self-reverted, but I don't decline speedies means on its face that Fastily deletes everything without considering whether it meets the speedy deletion criterion.)[reply]
    Yngvadottir, the way I'm reading that diff is that if Fastily thinks a page shouldn't be deleted, they just leave the tag up rather than hitting the decline button to avoid long discussions. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the case from what I've seen. Fastily will delete the obvious ones and then leave questionable CSD nomination tags in place, which sometimes get declined by other admins. I do not believe that Fastily deletes CSD tagged pages without first considering whether the nominations meet CSD criteria, regardless of whether his interpretation of said criteria is a bit expansive. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nythar, based on my experience, I don't agree and think that is a sweeping conclusion based on a handful of diffs. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure which part of my comment you're disagreeing with but to be clear, I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet; just noting my observations. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Fastily's comments in that diff in the same was as Dilettante and Nythar - Fasily was responding to someone who observed that they never challenge speedies, so they just said that they don't decline speedies by removing the tags because it leads to too many lengthy conversations with disgruntled taggers. I don't have a view on whether there are mistakes amongst the ones they opt to delete, but it would not be fair to imply that this comment was intended to mean 'I just delete everything'. Girth Summit (blether) 11:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, that was my read of things too. I've seen a lot of admins say that about U5s in the past 48 hours. I think Fastily's approach involves deleting more than what others would, but I don't think they're doing it out of malice or because they don't care about the rules. That's why I was hoping discussing things with them would help. Things escalated quickly but yeah... the hope was that things would get better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't enjoy receiving and responding to nastygrams from angry taggers, so I ignore bad CSD tags. This *is* a volunteer website after all and there's no requirement for me to take on work I find unpleasant. Also this may be a surprise to some folks, but I actually think a lot of the pages that end up in CAT:CSD aren't eligible for CSD and shouldn't be deleted. -Fastily 00:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is far from scientific, but I could summarize my experience as follows: When I nominate several pages for speedy deletion in succession, I always expect that you or the other 3-4 workload handlers will handle the requests. When they've been handled especially quickly, it might typically be you who has deleted, which I ascribe to nomen est omen, but that might be confirmation bias. Not all of my tagging is equally obvious, but I try to make sure that it meets the bar of "obvious" (I always answer the hypothetical question: "Why is this obvious?"), and I don't think I'm a bad CSD tagger. When you have deleted a page I have tagged, and I have tagged other pages under the same criterion in proximity, that you have not deleted, and someone else deletes them some time later, I always think: Admins like Fastily only delete the most obviously obvious stuff to speed themselves up and not get dragged down by potential complaints. Never seen any problems in this regard, and to me this has always been a sign of the system working as intended. —Alalch E. 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're spot on there. Deb (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like there's a misunderstanding here: your repeated misapplications of the u5/g11 criteria is not (inherently) the issue. The issue is that when new editors or potential editors (AGF says they're new editors until proven otherwise) asks you about an admin action, you threaten to block them.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. And I mean, come on, the beginning of your talkpage is literally a giant stop sign that takes up my entire screen, combined with another threat to block people who re-create pages you U5. Which, with the benefit of hindsight telling you just how far outside of community norms your interpretation of U5 is, you can surely see is a bad idea?
    When another admin asks you about decision you made, well, we all saw what happened. I have to admit I'm a little disappointed you haven't apologised to Clover or Fathoms yet, especially seeing as your accusation to Fathoms was based on the misunderstanding that you two hadn't interacted. (When, in fact, you'd previously threatened to block Fathoms, they'd insulted you and apologized for it, and then given you a holiday card and a barnstar.) I can get not remembering. What I can't get is being an admin, accusing somebody else of doing something wrong, and then not apologising for it. I know you can't either- earlier this year you strongly implied that you'd only unblock somebody if they apologised to you. Actually, that entire conversation is impressive. You took a normal administrative action against a user, and dragged it real close to being an WP:INVOLVED violation. For future reference, conversations which go:
    Admin:Do you think we're dumb?
    User:Go ahead and block me then please
    Admin: As you wish
    (blocked, more back and forth)
    Admin: Also I'm unimpressed by how you're twisting the facts to fit your ill-advised narrative
    Over the fact that the user was um, going way too fast in an area and making a lot of simple mistakes while not responding to feedback until it was to late, while not a bright-line violation, is still bad.
    So yeah. If you were operating under the impression that this was just about your CSD deletions, sorry. It's not. It's about your attitude to them And, on a side note, responding to somebody saying they were disappointed with how their attempts to talk with you ended the way that they did with a comment about how you actually do chose not to action some CSD tags is hardly relevant. But, and just because it's been a few days and I'm curious- what is your actual explanation for the behaviour illustrated here and here. You've recently said that you even do some cursory research on any page before deleting, so what gives? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone else is confused like I was about the beginning of [Fastily's] talkpage, it's an editnotice set to display to unconfirmed users - visit special:permalink/1026551436 while logged out to see what I believe GreenLipstickLesbian is referring to. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per all of the points made above Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There is a serious WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND concern here that merits a community discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm probably an outlier in my interpretation of ADMINACCT, but this seems to be a persistent issue. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) This clearly won't pass barring some serious new evidence. Moreover Fastily and other admins here are being subjected to downright rude accusations, something I'd prefer not to align myself with for no good reason. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC) I hate to vacillate but Smart Kitten's diffs are serious new evidence. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've given this some thought. I want to make it clear that me signing this petition isn't necessarily equivalent to an oppose at RfA. But I do think enough has happened here to warrant an RfA. I'm not the first one to bring up concerns about Fastily's speedy deletion. I'm a bit concerned that their deletion batching appears to require them to use U5, which other editors have inquired about before (see User talk:Fastily/Archive 7#G11/U5 and promotional user pages and this quarry that shows 103,299 deletions under that criteria). Other inquiries include: User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#User:Williamtyan deletion U5, User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#U5 for almost all userspace deletions?, and User talk:Fastily/Archive 7#Speedy deletion CSD U5s. While I'm sympathetic that Fastily has been having a rough time recently, that doesn't really excuse their behaviour directed at me and Fathoms Below. We haven't even received an apology. I don’t think this is compatible with ADMINCOND. I do think this might be indicative of a larger issue given that many admins have recently expressed that they no longer patrol U5s because they see too many incorrect taggings. There's also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 84#Can we talk about the fact that almost all U5s are against policy?. I find it confusing that there's a difference between what's been decided by consensus to be part of the CSD criteria and how individual admins enforce it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ This was posted a few hours ago at ANI by Fastily. Perhaps that indicates there's a way to resolve this and move forward without anyone needing to be recalled. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that before I even started writing this and it's why I wrote: While I'm sympathetic that Fastily has been having a rough time recently, that doesn't really excuse their behaviour directed at me and Fathoms Below. WP:ADMINCOND is a higher bar. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also posted We haven't even recieved an apology which made me think you hadn't yet seen the post; so, my apologies to you for mistakenly assuming otherwise. Anyway, what Fastily posted seemed sincere to me. Do you see it as a "non-apology apology" because it didn't mention specific users by name? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as someone saying they were having a tough time and that's why they acted the way they did. I don't see a clear apology, even if I do see some regret. They say "I apologize to anyone I may have offended". This comes across as I'm sorry your feelings got hurt, so I do not see that as equivalent to acknowledging wrongdoing in itself, even if there is a sentence about how this doesn't excuse their actions. That next sentence feels like a start, but it also doesn't feel like enough. I do think what was said to both of us was severe enough that direct apologies would be a reasonable minimum to have. I've been through some pretty horrible things myself, but I don't take it out on other people. That's not acceptable behaviour even if it's a mitigating factor. ADMINCOND says that "Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others at all times". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC), edited 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be very careful about this, and I kind of feel like I'm walking on eggshells by posting at all. I've looked carefully at what Fastily said at ANI. I agree, in a technical way, that his comment was not a formal apology to Clovermoss or to anyone else. On the other hand, it is clearly an explicit recognition of community concerns, clearly an expression of regret for what he acknowledges to have been errors on his part, and clearly a statement of intent to do better in the future. In terms of administrator accountability, that's probably a good thing. Accountability does not extend to making personal apologies that satisfy the person who is requesting them, so I'm not sure that the lack of a personal apology is a sufficient reason to desysop. (I recognize that there are other issues here, and some of them do seem to me to be worthy of discussion, but I'm just commenting about apologies.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish, I don't think you need to at all feel like you're walking on eggshells. Part of the reason I started this petition was because I feel that we have, somehow, ended up with an admin that other people do feel the need to walk on eggshells around. And I'm going to come down in between both you and Clover on the apology thing. It's an improvement, especially compared to the "Having fun twisting the narrative there?" rant that started this. And I'm grateful that Fastily has, in their own way, decided to come forward and make some attempt at an apology.
    But that being said, the part of the apology I'm more concerned about is that fact that their first response to criticism was to lash out, and that their second was to state that they'd stop handling these (as in G11's/U5 deletions). This "when criticised, either lash out or leave the area entirely" dichotomy Fastily has created for themselves is unhealthy - for them, and for the community. If I tell an administrator or a fellow editor that I feel they mistepped, I want to feel like I'm able to do that without being attacked and without feeling that if I saw something, the other person is just going to quit the area/the project. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal take on this is that if you lash out and accuse an editor of abuse when they're just expressing concerns and another of canvassing without merit, then you owe those people an apology. Maybe it isn't "required" but what happened was definitely a step up from ordinary incivility or else I wouldn't be here. I also can't force anyone to apologize to me. As for the deletion concerns, I do wonder what Fastily would do instead, as the bulk of their work on the project is speedy deletion (at least as far as I can tell). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you or anyone else wondering what Fastily's going to do after this? It is a volunteer project after all and we're all free to come and go as we please, right? Whatever Fastily ends up doing will be what they want to do, and there's no need for anyone to "wonder" about it. The person who started this recall and those who end up signing it obviously feel Fastily's conduct is/was inappropriate for an administrator. You don't recall people who you feel are doing a good job, and you don't recall people who you're going to !vote for again when given the chance; that's pretty much how recalls work out in the real world, which means it's pretty much how they're going to work here on Wikipedia. A recall isn't a pleasant diplomatic process where everyone has a good time and comes across as a nice person; it's a nasty nuclear, bridge-burning option from which there's most likely no way back. So, if you, GreenLipstickLesbian or anyone else is really worried that an administrator or fellow editor is going to leave the project because of your criticism of them, then perhaps don't criticize them. If you're really worried that an administrator or fellow editor leaving the project is going to be a huge loss to the project if you criticize them, then perhaps don't criticize them. If you feel your criticism of them is on point and there's negatives outweigh their positives, you can't really be too concerned about how it might hurt their feelings. You don't get to try to rehabilitate people or try to make nice with them after something like this; if they want to leave, just let them go and don't worry about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering what they were going to do because I was under the impression they were moving away from processing U5s. Given that's the majority of their admin work, I was curious what their plans were if they were going to be doing something else adminwise for awhile, because people have concerns about speedy deletion. It's not really any of my business to tell them what to do, but I think they've done some good work with granting userrights. I saw some of that when I was digging through their talk page archives. My speculation was not intended to make them want to leave the project. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't think providing feedback means you have to burn bridges with that editor. Yes, I have some serious concerns about their approach to deletion and how they handled initial feedback, but that doesn't mean I can't still hope for the best and offer constructive criticism in the meantime. A lot can happen between a petition and an eventual re-RfA, if things even get that far. But there's a reason I said I want to make it clear that me signing this petition isn't necessarily equivalent to an oppose at RfA. But I do think enough has happened here to warrant an RfA. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this petition fails, it'd give me some peace of mind if they rewrote that batch deletion script to not change deleted pages to U5 regardless of what they were tagged with and to be more cautious with how they apply U5 generally. For example, the User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Bristlepaddy (12:02, 21 October 2024) situation before it escalated when I followed up at User talk:Fastily#U5s. I realize they said they'd be more conservative processing these if they return to this area in the future, but it'd be reassuring if they explicitly said they wouldn't delete pages like this. I'm not trying to be nitpicky in this request. Fastily believed that page to be obvious spam, so I'm somewhat skeptical that our ideas of being more conservative when it comes to speedy deletion match. When there's a disconnect like that, it's good to make sure everyone is on the same page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if you, GreenLipstickLesbian or anyone else is really worried that an administrator or fellow editor is going to leave the project because of your criticism of them, then perhaps don't criticize them. If you're really worried that an administrator or fellow editor leaving the project is going to be a huge loss to the project if you criticize them, then perhaps don't criticize them.
    That's an interesting philosophy. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In addition to what others have written, the diffs in Green's latest comment here, a read of the most-recent user talk page archive (which has more interactions like those in Green's latest diffs), plus recent comments 1 2 3 seem to me to show a poor attitude and too many negative interactions with other editors, esp. new or newer ones. It doesn't seem like Fastily's response to Clover was just a bad day, but rather part of Fastily's Wikipedia worldview or attitude -- which I'd describe as a "defender of the wiki" attitude (an I have to be this way because I'm dealing with the unwashed masses-type attitude) -- and that's not good in an admin as it leads to wp:bite-y behavior, as we've unfortunately seen both recently and (as shown in Green's 2019-2024 diffs plus the older pre-2012 ANIs) consistently for years. If I had to guess, years of being an admin have just left Fastily too jaded. But jaded admins drive away editors, so we can't have it. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support recall since a subsequent RfA will be publicized to all editors at the tops of their watchlists. The concerns and diffs discussed above need wider review than this petition, which most editors are unaware of. Future recalls should get the same wide notifications as RfAs. My support is primarily about process and notification. I presently lean toward “neutral” in any subsequent RfA. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A smart kitten’s evidence below shows Fastily repeatedly and abusively crossed bright red lines no admin should ever cross. Fastily was not serving Wikipedia when they did this — just gratifying their own ego. Admins, like cops, are expected to check their egos at the door when they log on.—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm concerned about WP:ADMINCOND & WP:ADMINACCT. In addition to things that have already been mentioned, I've come across examples of (a) Fastily deleting a page created by a new editor, (b) the editor enquiring about the deletion at Fastily's talk page, and (c) Fastily then reverting the editor's addition to their talk page & blocking the editor without leaving a talk page block notice – see the collapsed paragraph for some of these that I noticed:
    As I don't have viewdeleted rights, I can't see what was in the deleted pages -- personally speaking, though, what concerns me about these are the facts that queries (presumably made in good faith) regarding Fastily's deletions were met with a revert rather than a response, that the editors were blocked without being left a notice with instructions on how to appeal, and the outward appearance that they were blocked by Fastily as a result of asking about a deletion that Fastily made.
    I don't yet know how I would vote in an RRfA, but it is my belief that such a discussion is needed. I am not signing this recall petition lightly, and have taken a lot of thought before deciding to place my name here. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an example of why it is important to leave a deletion notice when I delete someone's hard work. If they are still not convinced, I seek a third opinion. If they still do not understand, there's always deletion review. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A smart kitten: Given the attention that your evidence has gotten, I'm trying to evaluate it carefully. I can clearly see inexperienced editors asking sincerely why Fastily deleted something they created – with a wide range of cluefulness, some of them sounding like potentially not-here accounts, but others clearly sounding to me like courteous and good-faith inquiries – then Fastily reverting the query with the edit summary "rvt spammer", followed by the quick block. A question that I have is whether, in fact, the previous edit histories of these accounts would support the characterization as "spammers". I'm hoping you can clarify that, rather than my having to do the research myself. If these accounts were really spam-only accounts, I might be more sympathetic to the need for blocks, but if they weren't, that would very much heighten the concern for me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first in the list is currently most of the way through what looks like it will be a successful block appeal, so there's that. If no one with admin goggles gets back to this in the next 24hrs or so, ping me? -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the deletions themselves go, there's a couple I might not have pushed the button on, but the only one I'd have declined was User:CrowdedMusic. User:VivaLasAlamos did need a second read. —Cryptic 20:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish I haven't looked at all but some of them look rather like paid users playing naive. I was particularly unimpressed with User:VivaLasAlamos (sample "I noticed how far out of date our corporate information page is at CoverMyMeds (as of the above date) - with the most recent information 6-7 years old... we don't even have a picture up of our LEED and WELL Platinum-certified Campus, which is an absolute gem of a physical workspace."), which I would suggest was removed from the list. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that one seemed to be deliberately trying to game U5 to make the page technically unspeedyable with the "What motivated me to become a Wikipedian?" header and the stuff in the first section. —Cryptic 20:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to delete G11, not U5, where it applies. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have blocked that one before they managed to come to my talk page to ask about why I deleted their userpage, frankly. They're explicitly here to game SEO, and say as much. -- asilvering (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: Acknowledge having seen, will work on a reply - I'll try not to take too long, but I want to make sure that I address your question properly. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all of you. It does sound like there may have actually been some valid reasons for these blocks. But I want to focus the question that I asked, a bit more. Aside from the stuff that got deleted, did these accounts have histories of making good-faith edits elsewhere, or did they just seem to be single-purpose spammers? Or were they such new accounts that they hadn't yet edited anything outside of userspace? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this look like the only unrelated, nontrivial edits by any of the accounts. —Cryptic 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff looks OK to me, the second, constructive but pretty trivial. So these accounts may have been spam-only SPAs, or maybe just new accounts that still needed an opportunity to learn the ropes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were to think that the editor might be a paid one, attempting to promote John T. Pinna (the subject of the deleted draft), then the first diff does not give a positive impression. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, the second comes from the pen of someone trying to create a bio of "the President and CEO of Iristel". Espresso Addict (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I would present the evidence. To answer Tryp's question, of the 10 accounts linked by Smart Kitten:
    1. Vratislav Morkus only made 2 edits: 1 live and 1 deleted [63] [64]
    2. Asheshsaraf only made 3 edits: 1 live, 2 deleted [65] [66]
    3. VivaLasAlamos made 4 edits: 3 live, 1 deleted [67] [68]
    4. Pichyapa Kh made 15 edits: 12 live, 3 deleted [69] [70]
    5. Rishdhi made 34 edits: 1 live, 33 deleted. The live one is in userspace; I assume but I don't know that the 33 deleted ones were also in user space. [71] [72]
    If none of those five even edited outside of userspace (unless those edits were deleted), they aren't spammers.
    6. M.b.blue made 4 edits: 2 live, 2 deleted, in user talk space and WP space (requesting undeletion) [73] [74]
    7. Mhogan98 made 3 edits: 2 live, 1 deleted. The live edits include this mainspace edit citing a T&F paper. [75] [76]
    8. Sbishay1 made 5 edits: 2 live, 3 deleted. The live edits include this edit adding to a list. [77] [78]
    9. AZaMas made 18 edits: 17 live, 1 deleted. None of the live edits are in mainspace; they're in user talk, WP, and Draft space. None appear to have been reverted, except for 2 RFPP's that rolled off, and the one to Fastily's user talk page. [79] [80]
    10. CrowdedMusic made 11 edits: 5 live, 6 deleted, all to userspace and WP space (the teahouse) [81] [82]
    Not sure how we can call those accounts "spammers", either; no evidence of mainspace spam (unless those edits have been deleted). It doesn't seem like any of the 10 accounts made any disruptive edits in mainspace, or actually disrupted anything at all. Levivich (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that is more in line with what I was hoping to see. But I read it differently than you do. An account can be a spammer, without yet disrupting mainspace. What I see increasingly in those non-deleted diffs are attempts to justify or deflect from edits that, in each case, appear to promote something with the appearance of a COI. What I'm not seeing are edits unrelated to the spam concerns, that improve something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to do that when you get blocked before making 5 edits, which is what happened to most of them. Anyway, I didn't think "promo-only" is the same thing as "spammer." And "promo-only" is hard to pin on someone with like 5 or fewer edits. And even still, the fact that a new user makes a promotional userspace draft is not a reason to block them, IMO. It's a reason to educate them. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are good points, and I partially agree. What I disagree with is finding fault with a "revert spammer" edit summary on the grounds that it should have been a "revert promo editor" edit summary. I'm as yet undecided about whether or not the accounts had been given enough opportunity to address whether or not they were promotional. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Someone whose only edits are writing promotional content in their userspace is almost never going to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Disagree entirely with that last sentence.
    This does not mean I would have made any of those blocks, since I tend to be more cautious with blocks than more other admins. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: I sincerely apologise for the long reply, and for the delay. I hope what I've written below is helpful /gen
    • M.b.blue, Rishdhi, Vratislav Morkus & Asheshsaraf had no editing history prior to their userpages/user sandboxes.
    • Pichyapa Kh had no prior editing history; however, as asilvering mentioned, they appear to be most of the way towards an unblock following a discussion on their talk page.
    • Mhogan98 had only this edit from earlier in the year (linked by Cryptic above) prior to their user sandbox.
    • Sbishay1 had only this edit from 2008 (also linked by Cryptic) prior to their more recent user sandbox.
    • VivaLasAlamos is mentioned above -- I can't see the contents of the deleted page that's being referred to, but their enquiry to Fastily reads to me like that of a good-faith paid/COI editor - though I obviously note that, if I'm reading correctly into comments made above, admins who can see the deleted page seem to disagree with this. They note that the Wikipedia terms of conflict of interest [...] allow[] an employee to suggest changes by placing them on the talk page rather than the article itself, so they're obviously aware of at least some of our COI/PAID rules. There's also a suggestion that they might have made constructive edits other than to articles with which they had a conflict of interest - their enquiry mentioned that while I am obviously limited on the edits I can suggest to the page for the company/companies I work for, I also can contribute on the entire remainder of Wikipedia outside of those few pages. User:VivaLasAlamos/sandbox (created before their now-deleted userpage), from which they link to what appears to be an instructional video on editing Wikipedia by a Wikimedian in Residence, also strikes me as a potential starting point for a good-faith editor -- a good-faith editor with conflicts of interest, yes, but a potential good-faith editor nonetheless.
    • CrowdedMusic is also mentioned above -- no edits prior to that of their own sandbox. However, they started a thread at the Teahouse after their page was deleted where they seemed to ask for advice in good faith, in addition to thanking the editor that had nominated their sandbox for deletion for doing your job to keep Wikipedia a safe place for reliable resources [diff] & saying that they were trying to grasp how this entire process works [diff].
    • AZaMas had no editing history prior to creating their userpage; however, after it was deleted, they left a message on the CSD nominator's talk page (in addition to Fastily's), in which they seemed to - by my reading - be genuinely interested in learning why their page was deleted (a view which seems to have been shared by the nominator, as - in their reply to AZaMas - they noted that they were so happy you came here, it means you actually have good intentions). Prior to being blocked, they also requested undeletion of a draft ([diff]), & asked at the Teahouse and AfC help desk for assistance with it. They later submitted a (declined) unblock request on their talkpage, where they stated that they were attempting to write an autobiography - however, in my view, they appear to be acting in good faith: among other things, they stated that they would of course disclose my relationship in the article as advised by [the CSD nominator], and that they understand [the concerns raised by the declining admin] and agree [with them].
    Obviously I can't see any of the deleted material, besides the excerpts that get logged by public edit filters & that make their way into the page creation log. However, of the enquiries that were left on Fastily's talk page (and, where present, the editors' prior editing histories), none of them personally tipped me over the line such that I was not able to view the enquiry as being made in good faith -- to be clear, this would be a different matter in my mind if these editors had been blocked by Fastily after leaving obviously bad-faith talk page messages. (I also agree with much of what Levivich is saying, but I'm hesitant to type much more to prevent this from becoming even more of a wall of text.)
    asilvering also implied above that they would have blocked one of the listed editors at the same time as deleting their page. To be clear, if these editors had been blocked when their pages were deleted, that would be one thing (and without having admin goggles, I would be much less able to judge whether I believed those blocks were appropriate). However, to only block after receiving an enquiry about the deletion you made - with queries that I am personally all able to view as having been made in good faith - is in my opinion not an acceptable use of sysop tools, and in my opinion not compatible with WP:ADMINACCT & WP:ADMINCOND. Because of this, my signature on this petition is not dependent on the content of the deleted pages, which I am obviously not able to properly judge.
    I again apologise for the long reply -- I wanted to make sure that I addressed your query properly. Also, I apologise if I could have copy-edited this response better - if I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter! All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it would have been acceptable to block someone for posting certain content, then of course it's also acceptable to block someone for doing so and then asking why it was deleted - the former being acceptable but not the latter is a self-contradictory perversion of logic. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start by saying that I agree in general with what Pppery just said. A smart kitten, thank you very much: that was exactly the kind of analysis that I was looking for, and the length of it doesn't bother me at all. I've gone through all of it, and I'll try to give a detailed reply, of just one fish's opinion, nothing more, as of this time, when there are still some things where I haven't made up my mind.
    For the first four editors, who had no particular editing history: They are very likely promotional-only editors, but I would have liked to have seen an effort to educate them before pushing the block button.
    For Pichyapa Kh, I don't know what will come next on their talk page, but their talk page comments so far sound to me like a promotional-only editor who is trying to get unblocked.
    The two editors also linked to by Cryptic seem to have made mainspace edits that, per Espresso Addict, were furthering the promotional intent behind their accounts. The mainspace edits weren't disruptive per se, except to the extent that they violated WP:COI and perhaps also WP:PAID.
    VivaLasAlamos doesn't so much appear to be promoting a business interest as promoting a not-for-profit with which they are associated. They explicitly denied being paid to edit, which I accept as good-faith. I'm sort-of leaning towards thinking that they were engaging enough that a block was unwarranted.
    CrowdedMusic strikes me as an unrepentant promotional account. Yes, they made various posts appearing to ask for help, but all of that comes across to me as disingenuous.
    I have a somewhat similar reaction to AZaMas, although I can give a little more credibility to the possibility that they were trying, clumsily, to learn from mistakes.
    In total, there are some things in the record that look troubling to me, but they seem to be a minority of the editors you listed, and they are certainly a minority of the very many editors Fastily has had to deal with. Does this rise to the level of requiring, for me, a desysop? I'm leaning towards no. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (re to @Pppery): Respectfully, I disagree that it's always also acceptable. A block made while deleting a page would be a reaction to the deleted page and a preventative measure against the creation of similar pages. However, a block made by the deleting admin after such a deletion has already been made, in response to the deletion being queried in good faith (and, in all listed examples bar one, with no similar pages having been created in the meantime), strikes me as a punitive sanction for making an honest enquiry as to why the admin made a deletion they did. In addition, ADMINACCT provides editors with the free[dom] to question or to criticize administrator actions [s]ubject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, & administrators have an expect[ation] to respond promptly and civilly to such queries; and reverting and blocking an editor in response to them asking such a question on your talk page is in my opinion not consistent with those principles. To me, the outward appearance here is that this is a pattern of editors being blocked as a punishment for asking about the deletion, rather than for creating the deleted content. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per a smart kitten. Can't judge the deleted material but blocking the user only after they have inquired and including no talk page message is inappropriate use of admins tool. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. There is a reason WP:CIVIL exists and as an admin, he should be an exemplar of it. What Levivich and ASK have posted lead me to believe that Fastily has lost his way/doesn't seem interested in changing. WP:BITE is practically a description of his behavior from someone with Admin rights and this is not good. I've also had several interactions with Fastily (and others who enabled him) in the past and this user's penchant for shutting down discussion that opposes their viewpoint/opinion. Such a review is warranted. If I'm not in the majority, so be it. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Smart Kitten's links show a troubling pattern. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I was against signing because I don't care about the admin disputes over a few mistakes, but Smart Kitten's post swayed me. I can understand most mistakes, but repeatedly blocking users for daring to politely challenge why you deleted their page is a real abuse of power. Failing to leave notices of the block is just the cherry on top. Blocks should not be punitive. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree with Smart Kitten's post like everybody else. But use of admin powers to block users after asking a simple question on their talk page is just an abuse of admin powers. Also I see that Fastily is failing to leave a notice on the talk page and how to appeal the block. Like this user always knew that its required. Unrelated, but this user does a great job at WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback by letting users know who are requesting for the permission to tell them if they are failing to notify users on their talk page or not, but it just seems weird that Fastily never lets the users know on their talk page about the block notice. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know about the failure to leave block notices. That is a pet peeve of mine. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PEPSI697: Why bring something up if it's unrelated? It would be better just to come out a say what you mean than trying to pass it off as a compliment. Besides, you posted things were "all good" regarding this about a week ago, but apparently they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly I think they were genuinely just giving context of their interactions with Fastily. He also denied my rollback request and PC reviewer request recently for forgetting to leave notices, and I am willing to openly state I find his failure to leave block notices more than ironic. OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OXYLYPSE: correct. I was giving context on interactions that Fastily gives with users in Rollback request permission.
    @Marchjuly: incorrect. I never said anything about the rollback request incident on 30 September-1 October 2024 here, I was giving context about interactions. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're giving context on something that you yourself qualified as being Unrelated in some way and great job was a backhanded compliment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, stop complaining with me and I didn't even start complaining. I'm not insulting or anything. Calm down. I was giving context as I always said. Don't take it seriously. Knock it off. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support recall I've read the responses above, and have concerns.→StaniStani 08:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Not amused by the problems after the fact raised by Smart Kitten. My viewpoint is virtually the same as OXYLYPSE. Kline • talk • contribs 15:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I had been holding off on including my name here after Fastily's apology, which I felt deserved some benefit of the doubt. Though Clovermoss' evidence above raised numerous questions. Then a smart kitten's evidence shows that this isn't "a few bad days" as claimed, but a pattern of activity on Fastily's part. And, despite the back and forth going on above, it is honestly irrelevant if the new editors in question truly are spammers in their intentions or not. Their edits as they exist on-wiki aren't enough to represent that and Fastily's actions when asked anything by them on his talk page, along with his repeated failure at following blocking policy when issuing blocks, is reason enough to finally support this petition. SilverserenC 22:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I didn't plan on signing after Fastily's apology, but Smart Kitten's evidence especially concerns me. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I've thought long and hard about this, and I'm still torn because while I think recall is a good but imperfect process, I do think that in this instance it's the wrong process (and the toxicity and assumptions of bad faith from certain editors, including the filer, just exacerbates that). If it were just GLL's evidence then I would probably not be adding my name in this section, however subsequent evidence, especially that by A Smart Kitten, is seriously troubling. I am unsure if desysopping is the correct remedy, but when the only options are "you must reconfirm your adminship" or "No sanctions of any kind for at least 12 months" and there are serious issues that mean remedies of some description need to be actively considered, the former is the least far from ideal. It's a real shame we are considering this issue here and not at ANI or Arbcom, which are actually set up to analyse evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf, to be clear, a second petition can be filed six months from when this one was opened, if it fails. The yearlong get-out-of-recall timer starts at the end of a successful (re-)RfA. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering thanks, I misremembered that but it doesn't meaningfully change the equation for me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a "vote for recall", but a vote favoring the opening of recall discussion. Too bad some others are confused by this process. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For further note, I'm not declaring a favor (or an opposition) to desysop Fastily. Rather I'd like to see how the process goes once the petition gets a couple more signatures after me. Well, I've interacted with this admin multiple times and found him easier to conversate with, but that's mainly related to files and WP:FFD work he's done there.     George Ho (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC); fully struck, 20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: This is not a recall petition for starting up a "recall discussion"; it's a petition to determine whether Fastily needs to go through the RFA process again for the reasons given above by the person who started the petition. So, signing it is indeed a "vote" in favor of recalling Fastily. If that's why you've signed, then that's fine: on the other hand, if you're just curious as to seeing how this works, there's already been one case of a successful petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 that further along in the process than this one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading WP:RRFA, I'll de-strike my vote only if Fastily wants to be re-nominated (or self-nominate) at RRFA. George Ho (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Signing a petition means that you believe the admin needs to reconfirm they have consensus to be an admin. It doesn't have to be for the reasons given by the person starting the petition, it doesn't have to be because you feel they should be desysopped. I agree with everything you say from "on the other hand" onwards though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I agree to disagree with you on this. The reasons this petition was started were clearly given by the person who started it, and everyone who signs it is (at least implicitly) agreeing with that person; people don't start (or at least shouldn't start) recall petitions if they feel there are still viable options left to be explored. IRL, people are recalled because someone feels they're doing or have done something so bad that they need to be stopped from doing it any longer. The results of these administrator recalls are binding and the recalled are essentially being given an ultimatum: RRFA or resign. There's no in-between and no fence to sit on. For sure, this is only the second one of these petitions to take place, but over time I believe a strong correlation between those who sign and those who !vote "oppose" will be shown because I feel signing is a de facto "oppose". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the reasons the petition were started are clearly stated. That doesn't mean everybody who signs the petition is doing so because of those reasons. There may well be a strong correlation between those who sign a petition and those who vote oppose (with zero RRFAs so far that is unknowable), but that doesn't indicate anything about why a person signing the petition is doing so, or that such a person must or will !vote to desysop. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I support, civilty is supposed to be wikipedia policy. The fact that Fastily's behaviour was defended at ANI is worrying. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Problematic behaviour has gone on for far too long. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Disclosure: I was the dynamic IP in the 2nd 2012 AN & BN post. I was hesitant to come here, but when I see the same behavior affecting others that affected me 12 years ago it gives me pause. When does a net positive become so drowned out by the gross negatives? My hope was that Fastily would slow down over the years. A restriction could be placed to limit the numbers of deletions per day, but then having an admin with restrictions begs the question, are they still a trusted editor? I understand why some admins are against this -- the net positive is a huge burden off of their shoulders -- but others only feel the gross negatives. Because of this, I add my signature to the petition. (One last thing, I have kept a 2023 TP message from the admin who started the AN 12 years ago which reflects the impact that they have made.) Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, although I do hate to be the final nail in the coffin here and I don't feel good about doing this. The diffs provided above, along with that highly-messy ANI show me the recurring problematic behavior here. EF5 20:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Cross-posting/linking to my response at ANI. -Fastily 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference to where the whole discussion has been archived: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#Fastily Buffs (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This needs a list of all the deletion reviews where Fastily's U5s have been overturned.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be a subset of quarry:query/87651 (I haven't looked at them yet). I'd say there's surprisingly few there, but it's really not surprising - U5 by its nature targets only the pages of users too new to know how to formally contest the deletion. —Cryptic 14:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, as broadly interpreted as possible, two of the nine pages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 15#User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 9#User:ADilbert/Eazdeals (self-reversed and sent to mfd), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 10#Rona De Ricci (a U5 was a side issue there); Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 22#User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox. —Cryptic 14:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's pretty far from being a RHaworth-type situation, isn't it?
When I supported the recall proposal, RHaworth was the case I had in mind. His deletion decisions were egregious and he wouldn't listen. A lot of them were right, but the error rate was just too high. Fastily (clearly) isn't anywhere near RHaworth's level, and all we've got apart from the speedies is a recent ANI and several threads from the early Cretaceous. I wouldn't countersign this.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Append to Cryptic's list: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 10#1 Pavilion, which I'd forgotten that I closed myself. Fastily flagged it as a U5, should've been a G11. I don't think it's a big deal.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately left that out, since the deletion itself wasn't overturned. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 27#User:Gitanjali-JB is similar and even clearer. —Cryptic 17:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am bemused as to why this has been started before the ANI thread has concluded, especially given that pretty much all the evidence apart from the current dispute is over a decade old. Starting one of these is a big deal - why could it not have waited a few days? Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of urgency which seems strange. For example, the arbcom action against another admin has arisen out of nowhere and has rapidly escalated. In this case, a disagreement between two admins has been accelerated with words of bad faith, all because we're in a freakin' hurry. Wikipedia isn't wide open to disruption if we calm down. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but I really hope we don't get to the point where when someone complains about an admin at AN and doesn't get the answer they want, drags them through this process instead. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically exactly what recall is, except replace "someone" with "lots of people." (Right now we're defining "lots" as 25, but that might change.) Levivich (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Sounds very much like forum-shopping to me, but YMMV. You would expect that recall would be a last resort, not a first one. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a first resort here (or in the other petition). The first resort was the user talk page. The second resort was ANI. Recall is the third resort, and it was specifically created for when the first two resorts don't work. If that's forum shopping, then filing an arbcom case after an ANI is also forum shopping. In fact, neither are, because escalating dispute resolution methods is not forum shopping. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're missing my point. If an ANI discussion decides there isn't a major problem, that should be it, not "well, you didn't agree with me, so I'll try recall". Again, not saying that's what happened here, because the ANI discussion hasn't even concluded, but ... Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it. We have legions arbcom cases that followed ANIs that concluded there wasn't a major problem.
But I think you're missing my point: a long history of admins not holding other admins to account at ANI is why we have consensus for a recall process. The whole point of recall is that neither ANI nor Arbcom is enough. You can expect many more recall petitions that follow ANIs that decided there isn't a major problem. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I would expect recall to be for admins that have shown a major issue with ADMINACCT and I would expect that those issues would have been discussed thoroughly at ANI/AARV/wherever and there was still an issue outstanding. I would not expect it to be halfway through an initial ANI discussion which hasn't yet concluded. I'm not sure how you're not getting this point. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know how some of us think that recall is a complete failure, or that it should be changed, even though we haven't yet concluded even one recall petition (and zero RRFAs)? And those folks say "I've seen enough, I don't need to see more before making up my mind"? Welp, that logic applies to ANI threads, too...
In reality, I'd prefer that in both cases, folks slowed down and had more patience. This petition could have been filed later (or hopefully not at all), and it's the reason I haven't signed it yet (I'm waiting to see how Fastily responds) (thankfully I have the luxury of 30 days to wait and see, I don't have to decide in a week). But, the logic of "I've seen enough already" applies equally to ANI threads as it does to recall petitions. Levivich (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was my initial point up there ^, that I thought this was premature, although I suspect we agree for different reasons. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread has already had several admins weighing in. Fastily was chastised by some admins, and defended by others. The thread itself will end in no consensus for any actions against Fastily, especially given that it has already shifted into a mini-lecture series on American history and the usage of U5 in a wider context. But that's not what I'm concerned about.
No, I'm concerned by an active administrator who, upon being questioned about their decisions, sees fit to respond by saying things such as:
I take enough abuse from vandals/spammers/LTAs, the last thing I need is abuse from my colleagues [83]
Having fun twisting the narrative there? I suppose this will also be a shock to you: baseless accusations of bad faith aren't constructive feedback. I've been both patient and cordial with you, yet you have exclusively responded with vitriol and hostility. Well cool, I'll do the same, or wait, it's only okay when you get to be the one that does it huh. I called you out on it above and I guess that stings because it's the truth. Here's some friendly advice, don't run around throwing stones at others' houses when you live in a glass house yourself.[84]
I wasn't the one who went around looking to pick a fight in the first place[85]
These are very unkind things to say to a fellow editor - accusing them of picking a fight, accusing them of abuse (which....no), and whatever the "Having fun twisting the narrative there?" rant was. If a newbie editor had come into an ANI thread with statement like that, they would have been escorted (ideally politely) off of the thread, and maybe put in time out. That has not happened here. I have no reason to believe it will. Fastily's behaviour is not so egregious that it merits an arbcom case. However, it is unbecoming of an administrator. I have lost faith in their ability to abide by the basic principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINACCT. I said that. A few people have agreed with me. Some others have not. In 30 days, this petition will expire. Ideally, Fastily will have come to their senses before then. However, given the fact they're had 14 years to figure this out, I am not confident that an enlightenment will be forthcoming. If I'm wrong- then this expires, and no harm no foul. Maybe a bit unpleasant for them to deal with, especially given the fact they view regular questions as "abuse", but not everything can be pleasant. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like much of what you posted above is just a repetition of what you posted when you created this page. Is it necessary to repeat the diffs and quotes? Are the links to the ANI discussion and diffs you provided above insufficient for some reason? Couldn't you just reference your post above if you're concerned others might've skipped over something? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Fastily would label his deletions properly - I've said as much at the current discussion at ANI and in several of the DRV discussions found by my query above - and I really wish WT:CSD would get its collective head out of its ass about updating policy to allow deletion of the obvious products of paid editing and self-promotion, which are speedied by the hundreds every day despite not meeting the letter of the criteria. But stopping these deletions in the meantime would overwhelm Wikipedia solely to make a point, and I can't support that. The irritability and accountability issues are more concerning, but I don't think we're at the point where this is necessary, and if anything it's counterproductive to improving the issue. —Cryptic 14:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the biggest thing I've learned in the past 24 hours is that a lot of admins don't actually follow what the CSD criteria states. It's like some unwritten rule or something, to the point that not following it is considered problematic. I don't understand why it would disrupting Wikipedia to not delete things that the community by consensus has decided not to delete. I probably would have phrased things differently, but I do think Tamzin raises an interesting point about the state of U5s in general. [86] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good news is that you've already hit rock-bottom - U5 is both the most-often and most-severely misused speedy deletion criterion, so you're not going to get even more amazed if you start auditing G1's or A3's or such. The bad news is that it's difficult to correct for, as sort of alluded to above: new users, which the criterion deliberately targets, don't know to go to DRV even when the deletion is incorrect (which they wouldn't recognize anyway); and since while these aren't good speedies, they overwhelmingly wouldn't be good restorations either, so they don't get to brought to DRV by experienced third parties either. User:Pealoei from ANI makes for an almost-ideal example of this - while I was outspokenly critical of the deletion and the only part of U5 that it met was that it was in the userspace of a user without non-userspace contribs, with its creator blocked and the sorry state of its sourcing, at best it'd would've just gotten deleted again in six months as a G13 after being moved to draft. (I say "almost" ideal because we already have Provincial Electricity Authority in mainspace, which makes the whole thing moot.) —Cryptic 18:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see the biggest issue seems to be that Fastily sometimes doesn't have enough good faith, especially when dealing with newcomers. And that makes it seem like some of his deletions are wrong. If true, then those could've been brought to Administrative action review (which I think would be the right place instead of the ANI discussion). In the end I wouldn't consider this WP:TOOLMISUSE and not WP:ADMINABUSE to the level that I think a desysop is needed. Nobody (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about signing. Regardless of whether the deletions are correct (and the volume alone makes me think probably not), the adminacct/admincond issues are glaring. What I don't know is whether this is just somebody having a bad day or if it's a regular habit, and thus the likelihood of repeating in the future. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (non admin, not involved). I have no opinion on the substance of this case. However, everything that I have seen of WP:RECALL strikes me as an utter disgrace on the encyclopedia and nothing more than a WP:PA free-for all. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely on the money here. I'm no admin, none of my best friends is an admin. But a SECOND one of these stupid 'petitions' before the first - also deeply questionable - one is settled? This whole process sucks and how on earth it ever got made into a 'thing' still defeats me. It needs to stop, honestly. Right here. Wikipedia works on consensus, everything is based on consensus - except this 'first past the post' race to gather signatures. A pile-on without the need to even argue the merits. It's woeful. Best (in a usually quite mild-mannered sort of way) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in either petitions do either or you see either PAs or a pile on? Levivich (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you two would like to continue your discussion on the general merits of admin recall, WP:VP and WT:Administrator recall are in that direction. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tad too dismissive, IMHO. We're entitled to comment - where we want, when we want. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all true, and I don't know what in the world makes you think that. Disruptive editing includes commenting in the wrong place or at the wrong time. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, discussing opposition to this process is absolutely not disruptive editing, and to characterize it that way is such an astonishing lack of good faith that it borderlines on an aspersion. The disruptive editing guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. Nowhere within that guideline does it include "commenting in the wrong place or at the wrong time". ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody commenting "keep" in every AFD because they disagree with deletion policy would be an example of disruption, we have a whole guideline about this called WP:POINT. Same for recall. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we never dealt with an entire project whose members did just that. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we did. We TBANed them. (And some were even CBANed or indef'd.) Levivich (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only after they'd done something else egregious. In some cases that was years later. (By the way, we are probably off topic now). Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Andrew and LB were TBANed for disrupting deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. That was in 2021. ARS-related ANI threads go back to 2007. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the ANI thread and I'm not sure how deep these concerns might lie, but I'm not going to sign this right now since I'm wary about recall in general and I think it might be too long of a process. The civility concerns matter, but as a user who has had problems with civility before, I'm going to go light on this since maybe this can be resolved by an apology for casting aspersions and perhaps going deeper into their rationale behind the deletions next time? People can have a bad day and there's still time for this to be de-escalated. The deletions by script concern me as well but I haven't looked fully into that either. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not going to opine here either ways just yet, but I must ask: why are we already at RECALL even as the matter plays out at the AN/I thread? This feels awfully premature at best - I can't see any calls (or even mentions!) for recall from before this petition was opened. GLL, I feel, should have instead waited for a bit to see how the thread runs out before starting this petition (especially in light of the absolute mess that has happened in the Graham87 petition). JavaHurricane 16:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disappointed with the apology, but I feel like it would be inappropriate for me to sign when I've had negative interactions with Fastily from when I was a newbie and didn't understand the importance of WP:TPO. So I'm more ambivalent about everything right now and I think I'll give things a rest. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that Fastily is the fourth-most-active human admin of all time, and also the third-most-active human admin in the last month too. We would lose a lot of admin work if Fastily would be recalled. And while unlike with Graham87 where a decent chunk of that work is something that nobody would other do, probably Explicit or Liz would pick up most of the deletion slack, but still don't throw away the baby. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bus factor argument cuts in the other direction for me. When I see someone deleting 18,000 pages in a month, that makes me think they should stop, not that they should continue. Because nobody can read 18,000 pages in a month (600 a day). And I don't know exactly what kind of pages those are, e.g. if it's a page+talk, you might not need to read the talk page, but cut that in half, and still nobody is reading 300 pages a day. No doubt not every page deleted is a page that needs to be "read" in the traditional sense; some pages are just a few words (e.g., redirects). But I don't believe a human could read even 18,000 page titles in a month (600/day, every day, no days off).
So 18,000 pages a month tells me this person is deleting pages without reading them. And deleting a lot of pages without reading them, like hundreds per day. That alarms me; I can't help but think that we have no idea what's being deleted or whether it's good or not, because not only is the deleter not reading the pages, but no one else is, either. Nobody is going to audit 18,000 pages or anything even close to that. So I'm pretty convinced, just by the volume, that we have a problem of an admin deleting thousands or tens of thousands of pages they never read.
And then there is the larger issue: if our system, in order to function properly, requires someone to delete 18,000 pages a month, then our system is very broken. We cannot have a system that relies on someone deleting-without-reading. Nor can we have a system that relies on somebody spending all day every day reading and deleting pages. This is a separate reason, in my view, for this sort of large-scale deletion to stop: we need a system where the number of new pages created is not so great that nobody can read them. And if Fastily an admin stopping the mass-deletion means that we get overrun by new page creations, then so be it: let us fix that problem (too many new pages) without relying on a single person to do a hundred thousand deletions a year. Maybe that means making other reforms, like not allowing new users to create new pages. But the status quo is alarming. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the 18,000 pages a month is done by Explicit, not Fastily. Fastily is deleting 3,000 pages a month. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my mistake; fixed. Fastily's 100/day average (37k over the last year [87]) is of course not as alarming as 600/day; I'm not sure exactly what the "right" limit is. But my comment was intended as more of a general point about bus factor and high-volume admins: it applies just the same to the admins with very high numbers of blocks, protections, etc., as it does to non-admins who perform extremely-high-volume tasks. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've deleted a total of 77,222 pages, which I thought was considerably higher than most admins. The number you've cited for Explicit and Fastily are staggering in comparison. I'm not saying that they're wrong, either, just, um, unexpected. My view has always been that the bar to page creation is way too low but unfortunately in keeping with the culture of Wikipedia. We already have enough crappy articles and yet we keep creating more and tout our high numbers. As long as I'm venting, I'll finish with I think the recall process is a complete failure now that it's been implemented. Nor am I surprised.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RHaworth deleted more than half a million pages.—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm pretty high on that list, too, but it's mostly CSD G13s and we have 150-200 of those that need to be deleted every day. I like to work with G13s and PRODs because they are both forms of deletion that can be reversed upon editor request and I like having that option be present. RHaworth was notorious among admins patrolling CSD categories because he would delete any page that was tagged without evaluating it himself. And we have some patrollers who kind of long for those days when their taggings wouldn't be questioned. On the adminstats list he used to be right behind MZMcBride who, unfortunately, used a bot for mass deletions and lost his bit over it. But RHaworth didn't lose the bit for his indiscriminate page deletion but for the terrible way he treated editors, mostly new editors, who questioned these deletion on his User talk page, he was dismissive and condescending. Explicit is our current Czar of Page Deletions but a high percentage of their deletions are emptying daily file categories which, for some reason, no other admins handle.
I wouldn't pick up any extra CSD U5 deletions because I avoid evaluating those tagged pages because so many of them are inappropriately tagged. I got tired of untagging so many pages and having patrollers upset so I just leave them for other admins to review. Yes, you can call me conflict-avoidant. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High levels of admin activity are welcome and they do you credit, Liz. It strikes me that we could and likely should set up an admin bot to prowl for empty categories.
RHaworth and MZMcBride were both at the intersection of very high activity levels and a cavalier attitude to the boundaries the community has set on deletion. That's a toxic combination. You are very much not in the same place.
I'm appalled to have discovered the WP:BASTARD redirect today. There's an opportunity for you to use the delete tool, if you want.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of that redirect shows that the user it targets is aware of it, reverted a request to delete it and, a few years later, requested its undeletion (a request the deleting admin granted) so it isn't a straightforward G10. I have not yet found why they wish it to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, they discussed it on their user talk page less than 3 weeks ago. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by how many editors have told me they take their CSD taggings to be correct if other admins eventually come around and delete the thing, we've got a terrible case of confirmation bias going on here. Admins who have given up on declining speedies (not just Liz!): please, get in there and start declining them again! -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins can remove speedy tags. I have no qualms about this. This also reduces admin workload. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone (other than, in some cases, the page author) who sees an incorrect speedy tag should remove it. Admins are human‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and so we will make mistakes from time to time. If non-admins remove incorrect tags then it reduces the chance of the error being incorrect speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly, However, I think in practice many non-admin editors will experience pushback from some taggers. I've had tags replaced when I've explicitly declined. Perhaps I made an incorrect call, as you say "admins are human", but if it happens to an admin formally declining, inexperienced editors will need to be very sure of themselves to engage in an argument with the patroller. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily's work in file copyright is the much more important issue, in my mind. We don't have many admins who do file deletions and discussions, and it would be a shame to lose one of the few we have with expertise in the area. But that doesn't excuse gross violations of WP:ADMINACCT. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think there are only about 4 admins who regularly handle file deletions. Fastily and Explicit do the bulk of the work here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the way admin recall petitions are being used - I think that they should only be started if there has already been discussion, there isn't any ongoing, and the admin has demonstrated that _whatever the problem is_ is still ongoing even after the latest discussion. There is an ongoing ANI where people are attempting to resolve this in a satisfactory way - why would anyone there come here to sign this petition? This is a petition to give an admin an ultimatum, a 'prove to us that you can be trusted, or no admin tools for you', this isn't a good solution to a problem, it's a last resort - and I don't think it's being used with the care that it should be. At least, that's how I see things. – 2804:F1...86:83AA (::/32) (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The repeated invocations of ADMINCOND and ADMINACCT, as if the incivility in this situation was one-sided, are embarrassing. Using recall as an attempt to punish an admin when there is serious support for his actions (or at least a lack of support for sanctions) is blatant weaponization of a process meant to protect the community. "I didn't get my way at ANI, so I'll just initiate a recall" is exactly the worst-case scenario that established editors have worried for years would be the misuse of such a process. Thanks for living down to expectations and ensuring that this process will never be the positive safeguard it was meant to be. Grandpallama (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because it is one sided. I implore people to actually read the discussion that Fastily is describing as "abuse": User talk:Fastily#U5s. An apology to me and Fathoms would mean something to me, at the very least. All we did was raise concerns that an admin was deleting things outside the consensus of the CSD criteria. Politely and well within the bounds of ADMINCOND. Telling us to get off their talk page for that is alarming. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because it is one sided. That is a complete and utter falsehood, and repeatedly stating an untruth doesn't make it a truth. You owe Fastily an apology for your incredibly poor behavior and this "I'm an innocent victim" charade.
    Politely and well within the bounds of ADMINCOND Do you think you were being polite when you declared Fastily was engaging in bad faith? If someone says "pardon me" while punching me in the nose, does that make the punch civil? This pretense that if the words are polite, a statement is de facto polite is farcical and calls into question your fitness as an admin.
    Telling us to get off their talk page for that That is not why you were told to get off Fastily's page, no matter how many times you falsely claim so. Grandpallama (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between acting in bad faith and assuming someone else is acting in bad faith. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of which is acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! Clovermoss said Fastily failed to assume good faith, not that they aren't acting in good faith (which could have been an AGF violation but absolutely nobody is claiming that). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly! Clovermoss didn't say Fastily "failed" to assume good faith. Clovermoss accused Fastily of assuming bad faith (the worst faith possible, actually), on the basis of an action and has portrayed Fastily's angry reaction to that aspersion as further incivility. Grandpallama (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which has any thing to do with an AGF violation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The groundless accusation that Fastily's actions were a product of bad faith assumptions, without context, is a brightline example. Straight from WP:AGF: [E]ditors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please be more civil? Comments like this and the comments you made at ANI like [88][89][90][91] are not accomplishing what you think they are. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People saying things you don't like and pointing out problems in the narrative you have created is not incivility. Telling you that you owe Fastily an apology and arguing that you engaged in uncivil behavior covered in a civil veneer is also not incivility. The fact that you think someone else pointing out your incivility is itself somehow uncivil feels pretty revealing. Can you please stop using civility accusations as a weapon? Grandpallama (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and insulting them. I'm okay with the former, but not with the latter. You don't have to insult someone to make an argument and I'd argue that it actually detracts from whatever one is trying to say. I don't think expecting civility is unreasonable and I also don't think civility is a "weapon". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Condemning actions is not an insult. Again, please stop weaponizing civility, now to the point of implying WP:NPA. Grandpallama (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not just condemning actions, you called those actions "the narrative you have created" and Clover's statements as a "complete and utter falsehood". This reads like the Project 2025 talk page. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of which are comments on content, not editors. Correctly understanding our civility guidelines is the first step. Grandpallama (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you gave a WP:personal attack. Civility is broader than that. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI threads seem slightly more relevant when you consider the fact that Fastily was pretty much inactive from 2012-2016. See xtools: [92]. Out of all these, I'd say the 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#admin Fastily overusing their admin bit? is the most relevant to their argument that this is a historical pattern. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed

This comment in response to Clovermoss was removed because the editor wasn't logged in to an account. Other IP comment have been allowed to remain up on the petition, so I'm re-instating this one. I think it's just a bad coincidence that the IP comment critical of the petition(s) have been allowed to remain and the one critical of an administrator was immediately removed. But either we remove all IP comments, or we remove none. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that the admnistrator who removed that post did so not just because it was made by an IP account, but also because it was made by a new IP account that identified itself as a specific registered account, which btw is an account that is listed as "Retired" and which hasn't edited since the end of August? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, I said why I removed it in my edit summary: editors may edit without logging in but they cannot do so in project space. I've removed the diff above, and I would appreciate it if you did not reinstate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid going even further off-topic, responding at the talk page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support this petition because Fastily has promised to do better. However, as a personal note to them, "If you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page" is the worst possible response to criticism. No-one should ever tell another editor asking questions in good faith to "get off my talk page". I got a similar response once, from a different editor, and that was the most rude, demoralizing, and unsympathetic thing I ever experienced on Wikipedia. Toadspike [Talk] 10:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a very active admin here and on Meta for about 5 years before my 10-year hiatus and desysopping for inactivity. I'm not sure I would have had even 5 editors signing a recall petition. I was careful about what I did and tried to be as polite, even pleasant, as I could be. At worst, I was cheerlessly "correct" with some spammers. I made mistakes but I reverted and promptly apologized. I don't think of myself as an excellent admin but rather a perfectly adequate admin. The community's expectations are simple and very achievable. Admins represent the community, not their own egos.

I just don't understand all the admins bemoaning the idea that they've probably made at least 25 extended confirmed enemies. That's a lot; maybe they should have tried harder to live up to community expectations. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disagree, but I have the opposite experience. I was taken to the Arbcom a couple of times, and the Arbcom let me go, but in the process I had plenty of editors saying that I am such a piece of shit that they are surprised anybody would ever vote yes at my RfA. Most of them were extended confirmed, although some of them are blocked by now. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we can talk about "community expectations" in general, but you don't need to step outside of those expectations to run up 25+ people who are mad at you for blocking them, for not blocking someone else, for closing a discussion in a way they didn't like, for declining to close a discussion, for deleting an article, for not deleting an article... -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter, if you don't mind me asking, what did you do that got people stirred up? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once I approved the bot on Wikidata (in my capacity as a Wikidata crat) and the bot eventually misbehaved and some links on the English Wikipedia got screwed up (I was not the operator of the bot and I did not know anything about the links; once I learned about the issue I blocked the bot on Wikidata). Another time, I blocked two users short-term for coordinated edit-warring (one of them later turned out to be a sock) and they had a number of vocal friends; I was subsequently fully cleared by the Arbcom. It is not like I never make mistakes; sure I make a lot of them, and I try to take feedback on board, it is just that many users are not interested in giving me any feedback (except for that I would better never be born, which I obviously can not implement), and have a tendency to blow some episodes out of proportion. Mind you, I am #60 or something active admin of all times, but who cares what I have done on this site in my life if I have just blocked their wikifriend. Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, just checked: #49 counting bots, #40 not counting bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s all there is, it’s hard to think of you getting 25 recall sigs; if by chance you did, I’d expect you’d clear the bar at RfA.
I was taken to ArbCom and cleared. Even if this was recent and I was still an admin, I don’t think it would generate many sigs; the community knew the other parties were jerks. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add that it seems a few sigs go up quickly but additional ones are slower to come in - people are watching the discussion first. So far with these first 2 recalls, I’m seeing some angry individuals but no irrationally angry mob.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not particularly worry about it, I have more important things to worry about; I just wanted to point out that pretty much anyone can get 25 votes out of nowhere. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you don't need to step outside of those expectations to run up 25+ people who are mad at you for blocking them, for not blocking someone else, for closing a discussion in a way they didn't like, for declining to close a discussion, for deleting an article, for not deleting an article
pretty much anyone can get 25 votes out of nowhere
I do not believe these statements are true. It's quite an assumption to think that anyone who ever disagreed with any decision an admin makes, would therefore sign a recall petition. And furthermore, I think it's rather insulting to the people who have signed recall petitions to say this. I signed one, it's not because I'm mad at the admin for blocking someone or not blocking someone or deleting something or not deleting something... it's after reviewing years worth of discussions, comments from dozens of other editors, comments from the admin... only then did I make the choice to sign. I'm sure everyone else who signed either of the two petitions we've had so far have also put an equivalent amount of thought into it. It's not just so simple as "oh they did something I don't like, therefore I sign recall petition!" No, it's much more than that.
So, yeah, it's easy to find 25 people who disagree with an admin about some decisions they make, but that doesn't mean it's easy to find 25 people who sign a recall petition, and let's not assume that recall signers are signing over petty things like a single bad decision by the admin. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm making the assumptions you think I'm making. What I'm responding to is AB's maybe they should have tried harder to live up to community expectations. I'm not convinced that making at least 25 extended confirmed enemies is something that only happens to admins who aren't trying hard enough to live up to community expectations. I don't think that "making enemies" here is necessarily correlated with or predictive of much of anything at all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical logic is a long-term well-established discipline. In particular, it works with statements. If the statements "A has property B" and "A can do C" are correct, if follows, for example, that the statement "Some of those who did C may have property B" is correct. This logical construction is called a syllogism. It does not follow that "Everybody who did C has property B". This is a false syllogism. I mean, mathematically false. Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of people are complaining that Fastily is blocking without a talk page message. I don't see why a talk page message when blocking should be necessary at all - the user already sees MediaWiki:Blockedtext and the edit summary they used the next time they try to edit, which should be sufficient - if it isn't then that interface flaw should be fixed, not worked around by culture. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for a different venue. Right now, it's policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Notifying the blocked user. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page message - which, like Pppery, I've always thought redundant - isn't required by policy. "Should" isn't "must". What's required is a supply[ing] a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of that section, "should" is stating something that is the usual practice, but with some flexibility (I appreciate admins may not bother with the N-th incarnation of a sock puppet, for instance). The point is, though, that's a discussion for another venue. (Whether or not a talk page message was warranted in these particular cases would be relevant to this discussion.) isaacl (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: do you ever work from Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential U5s? Just curious. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No -Fastily 20:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to oppose this recall?

[edit]

A lot of fun old names here, hi. :-)

I'm confused by this recall process. There seems to only be a section for supports, but how do I oppose this recall and indicate support for Fastily's tireless volunteer cleanup efforts? Surely this page cannot be structured in such a way that people are only allowed to dogpile an admin. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait a month (!!) and then you can support at the RFA if this gets 25 signatures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets 25 signatures (which as SFR notes is allowed for up to 30 days) then Fastily has up to 30 days to start the Re-RFA. It's at the Re-RFA you could express support for Fastily. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MZMcBride, nice to see another fun old name here. :)
There is not a section for opposes, because for the purposes of recall, there are no opposes. The intent behind this process has been "If 25 people all find a problem, then it probably needs an RFA", not have an up-down vote before an up-down vote (RFA). There have been concerns raised about the process. Proposals at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#RfC:_Should_we_add_text_prescribing_just_signatures,_no_discussion? and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Shorten_the_recall_petition_period? are attempting to fix parts of it.
As a sidebar, perhaps these discussions should all be centralised somewhere like WP:RECALL/RFC or WP:RFA2024/Phase III/Administrator Recall instead? Finding the RFCs is going to be a hassle Soni (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Started it at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs so we can have them all in one place. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, so 25 people have to sign a petition (where?) to require a re-RFA and then that re-RFA will be held? (For the record, I put myself down as opposing any effort to remove Fastily. He does amazing work and it would be Wikipedia's loss to remove him.) --B (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B: This page is the petition. The petition signatures are in the #Signatures section. Each numbered comment is a signature. At this time 8/25 have been collected. —Alalch E. 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it looks like an ANI thread as opposed to a list of signatures may be why some find it difficult to recognize as such, I've certainly never seen a petition that works like this. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways Yes. This issue is receiving some hammering out over at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop#Moderated discussion not on the recall page —Alalch E. 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose this particular recall attempt against Fastily, and indeed as Narky Blert says above the entire RECALL process. Absolute nonsense, all of it. GiantSnowman 21:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What GiantSnowman says. Graham87 is already out too. 25 signatures--are there any requirements at all for the editors who sign their names? Just EC? I think this bar is just ridiculously low, and I'm wondering if we're going to keep up this rate and this batting average. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extended confirmed editors are the current requirement. See Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop if you're interested in changing the process. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are some deck chairs there that I think need rearranging, but I regret not paying attention when this ship sailed. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There has been an urgency to test run the new process that most didn't envision. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any admin who has pissed 25+ people off over the course of their wikicareer can lose the mop? Nonsense. ArbCom should be the only way, for serious violations. GiantSnowman 15:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • "urgency to test run the new process".
            As you (rightfully) pointed out in the ANI thread, Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread. So, despite several people agreeing that Fastily was in violation of WP:ADMINACCT, there was (again, in your own words), nothing to be done. That leaves ARBCOM or Recall. Arbcom is meant to be a last resort so, barring emergencies, it is recall.
            I also have to confess, I'm a little curious about your standards. When a fellow admin starts attacking people and making basely accusations of canvassing, misapplies CSD criteria regularly, threatens to block people as a first port of call when dealing with them, and starts making quasi WP:INVOLVED blocks, then doing anything about it belies a sense of excesive "urgency to test run the new process". But when it's a non-admin disagreeing with you on AFDs and voting 'keep' too much[93], you can bring them up to ANI for correction(based partly on faulty evidence!) [94] and that's appropriate? (Full credit for apologising in the end though. Just want to make it clear that you did admit you were too hasty and that you acted based on your preconceptions, and you apologised for it.)
            Sorry for getting off topic. Figured you wouldn't mind, however, given that your last several comments to the page have been about the process in general, and not about this specific petition. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • What a smug, self-righteous, horrible person you seem to be. That's diff #1 for my recall petition. Go for it. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because they brought up an example where someone was brought to ANI about voting Keep in AfDs and their overall competence in the project and that being considered a big deal to discuss, but doing a similar competence question for an admin who has been actively bullying new editors, making accusations of promotion without evidence, and also been verbally abusing anyone who calls them out on it, an admin doing that is fine in comparison? Honestly, so many admins throughout this process showing how absolutely arrogant they are about being called out for their editing and admin actions is making me question the competence and benefit of having around of quite a few of our admin corp at this point. SilverserenC 23:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you genuinely question the competence and benefit of having around of quite a few of our admin corp then do everyone a favour and lodge your evidence against them with Arbcom or here at admin recall. Otherwise this statement just comes across as a generalised slander, which probably isn't the intent but doesn't really help improve Wikipedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's more of admins, visually at least, appearing to act as a sort of clique in opposition to the rest of the editor community, whereby the negative and harmful actions of an admin are waved away so long as the admin in question "does good work". You can see a ton of that in the ANI discussion that prompted this as well, where there were numerous comments of "but Fastily does a lot of admin work that few others do", as if that has anything to do with them harassing and berating other editors, both new and old. SilverserenC 04:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Mm. You don't have to be an admin to be unblockable at ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Just to remind everybody there are 400+ active admins and like maybe 5% or less have opined about this, and the ones who are in opposition are a subset of that <5%, so it's really a tiny, if vocal, minority that is not representative of the vast majority of admins. It seems like a lot because 5 or 10 or 20 seems like a lot, but it's not actually a lot when you consider the total population. Levivich (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • GreenLipstickLesbian, after reading through this a few times I now think you were responding to BusterD. But here's the thing. If a couple admins decide "nothing here is actionable", and you and several people disagree--shouldn't you bring that couple of admins here for a recall? I don't really understand this. If admins are so obviously corrupting the process in protecting one of their own, then you should try to recall them. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Drmies Yes, I saw that- and you guessed correctly! The reply tool is a bit messed up on this page, or so it seems. Thanks for fixing the formatting!
                If an admin or admins were corrupting a process to protect "one of their own", then yes, I would try and recall them. But I didn't see that. At least, I don't think I saw that? I think I've at worst implied that some individuals may be biased, which, in this instance, I'm not too fussed about. And I wouldn't bring an admin through this for making a decision I disagreed with. But, really, AN/I is not suited to WP:ADMINACCT related manners. It can't enforce them, it's never pretended it can, and it's never pretended it can effectively. So why would I try and recall somebody acting within those bounds? Sorry if that's not a good answer. Did I understand your question correctly? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to ask then, MZMcBride. Do you also support Fastily's active abuse of new and old editors, of their many-fold accusations of said editors being spammers and colluding against them when calling out Fastily for their admin actions? Are you aware of the ANI thread that spawned all of this in the first place and called into question Fastily's competence when dealing with user pages and new editors? SilverserenC 23:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If any admin's conduct is so heinous as to (potentially) merit the removal of the mop, the ARBCOM is the way to go - not this mob with pitchforks. GiantSnowman 12:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GiantSnowman, the whole point of the admin tools is to protect and facilitate the work of the Wikipedia community. Individual admins are entrusted with those tools by that community. It's one thing to be skeptical about whether a community-based process can desysop effectively and without drama. But it really is something else to call people who are trying to make admins more accountable to the wider community a "mob with pitchforks". -- asilvering (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm concerned about the number of admins that can't admit Fastly made mistakes here. What's more concerning still is the discontent for the recall/re-RfA process shown by the long-standing admins. As has been hinted at already, I think many are concerned that the admin bar is now so high compared to 10 years ago that they wouldn't pass RfA today.
        • Personally think the whole administrator role needs an overhaul, but that's a wider discussion. OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @OXYLYPSE: I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why some admins may be opposed to the process in general, and I think many people are unfortunately looking at those who are opposed to it as bad eggs and "part of the problem". Without consideration of this current recall, which I haven't voiced an opinion on, I'm opposed to the current iteration of this recall process and I passed in September 2023. I think I'd likely pass if I ran again, as would a number of other admins who oppose it, but going through RfA, simply put, suuuuuuucks. It's not worth it for a lot of folks to go through a second time and fight to volunteer their time, and a number of great admins I know have said they wouldn't run again if recalled and would simply give up their tools. I don't think that perspective is at all unreasonable. Just something to consider. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          (Not an admin) It's weird that as soon as new RFA formats are trialed, which seems to have removed a lot (maybe not quite all) of the toxic arguments, it looks like some of the toxicity has transfered here.
          As you say @Hey man im josh:, it's not worth going through that toxicity for a second time. Nor indeed for a first time for some editors. Assuming that objections by existing admins of any length of tenure is because of a chance of not passing a second time is verging on insulting. Knitsey (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @Hey man im josh: I think your comment addresses my second point; the whole role and process isn't really fit for purpose. I don't have a crystal ball on how to fix it, but I think the bar to initially access useful tools should be lower. There probably should be a role before administrator with access to most useful tools but with some sensible limits, most places call this a moderator or similar.
          @Knitsey: My comment wasn't meant to insult, I object to your suggestion it is 'toxic'. I wrote it at the same time Drmies suggested they might not pass an RFA again and would soon end up retired (scroll up somewhere). The admin recall process has some issues, sure, but unless adminship moves to a periodic re-election process I think the attempt to increase accountability is warranted.
          The fact that it's widely acknowledged that going through RfA is 'toxic' is a problem. Working in multiple jobs in the technology sector these last years, I've been in a very privileged IT position. That is, I can literally take down entire companies if I wanted to (of course, I never would!). My most strenuous interview has been three rounds, and even that was quite relaxed. The fact that it is harder to become an unpaid Wikipedia administrator than it is to get through most job interviews is a serious problem for Wikipedia.
          Note that I haven't voted to recall Fastily here, I don't think the conduct warrants that. But, again, the fact that many refuse to even acknowledge the mistakes made is concerning. OXYLYPSE (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @OXYLYPSE, we already have lowered the bar for useful tools. Most people running for admin these days already have a fair few of them. See WP:PERM etc. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @Asilvering Aware of WP:PERM, thanks :)
          I guess my question is why can't tools such as page deletions/undeletions, temporary protections, and maybe even temp blocking can't be handed out more freely as well. If any of this sounds "crazy", just remember that Wikipedia is one of the few big places left on the Internet that allows anonymous users to edit pages without any sort of verification. OXYLYPSE (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Undelete (or more specifically the ability to view deleted revisions) is the most sensitive from the Foundation's point of view and that cannot be granted outside of a process with community review from at least 20(?) people. Deletion will never be uncoupled from undeletion. Deletion and blocking are the admin tools from which the greatest potential for harm from misuse arises, the community will not grant these to an editor they do not trust. Back in the very early days the project and community were both so small that everybody knew everybody very quickly and the impact of getting things wrong was so much less that getting adminship was basically just a result of asking for it. As the project and community have grown, it has become harder and now impossible to know everyone and the consequences of mistakes/deliberate misuse (and the motivation for the latter) have grown so the standards for adminship have risen. This has been in a way compounded by the unbundling of the lesser tools (e.g. back when I passed RFA even rollback was an admin-only tool, pagemover hadn't been conceived let alone implemented) so that adminship is a relatively bigger deal. I do think we have gone too far, and adminship is too hard to get, but I don't think more unbundling is a viable way to solve that, and removing all the standards completely is even less of a sensible idea. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          There is an ethical question about whether the unbundled permissions should be used if you do not pass. RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Hmm, if you get granted e.g. rollback at WP:PERM but then fail RFA, do you still have the ethical right to use rollback is not something I'd thought of previously. If your failure at RFA was due to things that would not prevent you from being granted rollback (lack of content creation perhaps) then I think the answer is yes. If your failure was due to your use of rollback, maybe not. If you failed at AELECT and therefore don't know why you failed it's even less clear - we're getting very off-topic for this page though (Fastily has enough on their plate currently without abstract philosophical discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GS, please stop disrupting recall pages by insulting other editors. Levivich (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I characterise this implementation of a community admin recall process as, itself, disruption. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for sharing. I think everyone should reflect on what we would do if an editor were to vote keep on multiple AFDs because they oppose our deletion policy, and/or if they were to call delete voters a mob with a pitch fork, a witch hunt, etc. Or what we would do if an editor voted oppose on multiple RFAs because they were opposed to the RFA system. Or if they voted oppose to every ITNC because they were opposed to ITN. Etc. All of us experienced editors know where and how to call for policy changes, and where and how not to. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say this to everyone in general and no one in particular. This discussion has gotten very toxic very fast. I hope everyone will dial it back a bit. I also think this is yet another indicator that the admin recall process is not well-designed and is not working well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The process seems to work fine. The reason why things are becoming toxic each time is because of some admins circling the wagons at the very thought of the rest of the editing community being the ones to hold them accountable. In both recall discussions thus far, it's full of certain admins whining about anyone even contemplating calling them out for their harmful actions. SilverserenC 21:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have proved Tryptofish's point. And I'm not an admin, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree with Tryptofish on this. Deb (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose this. Fastily is an incredibly helpful, useful and productive administrators, one of the most important volunteers on the project. Did they make mistakes? Yes, so issue a warning with explicit behavioral changes to be made moving forward but don't "fire" him. If this petition passes, and I assume it will, I sincerely hope that Fastily will run for another RFA. Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one thing that this petition is highlighting is the lack of flexibility compared with the ArbCom route, where one can readily challenge the evidence brought by others. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I would add that this process is less suited to thoughtfully evaluating that evidence, beyond just challenging it. And I reject the contention that this doesn't matter, because all that can be evaluated later, when there is a reconfirmation RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a response section where one can rebut things if they wish. Alternatively they could just reply to comments directly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, this is more about the quality (or lack thereof) of examination of evidence, rather than the existence of a space to post something. An editor can post a signature, with evidence, and it may look convincing, leading to a bunch of new signatures. Only then, questions may arise about the substance of that evidence, but the signatures are already there. ArbCom has evolved far superior ways to handle evidence intelligently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I got several edit conflicts trying to do just that, and it looks like badgering. I honestly have no idea whether or not a prolific admin working in deletion such as Fastily is overusing the delete button; it would take hours of careful diligent going through all their deletions for an extended stretch to form an opinion, and then if you ask five different admins you might well get five different opinions. ETA And it genuinely can't be be done by non-admins. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above recall petition discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this petition or the nominated admin). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Fastily&oldid=1258357935"