Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay

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

Master Jay

[edit]

Petition certified. 25 signatures of extended confirmed editors were gathered. win8x (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay (talk · contribs)

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. This admin appears to have been gaming the system to keep their tools for fifteen years. When keeping the mop required an edit a year, they averaged 2. Now that it requires 20 edits per year, they're averaging 21. I feel this may be someone with admin tools but no real understanding of how the expectations for admins have changed, and I'd like to see them re-RfA. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think the spurious accusation here reflects the good judgment required of an admin. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sohom (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (edit conflict) first time signing one of these... charlotte 👸♥ 22:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My first time as well. - ZLEA T\C 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Four admin actions in 15 years, nothing since 2020. Was only resysopped in 2019 because the crats didn't have any option per the then-existing rules and then chose to thumb their nose at the community by not using the tools again for over a year. Unimpressive doesn't begin to describe it. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't understand why they want to keep the tools, unless it's misplaced vanity. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is gonna be quick... Tarlby (t) (c) 22:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. First timer here. Hard to see the user's edits and behaviour as anything other than a form of WP:HATCOLLECT and they clearly have close on zero interest in using the tools. Not convinced they're staying up with community norms. Valenciano (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 293 edits since the beginning of 2008, 163 since the beginning of 2011. While I thank them for their service and the time they spent contributing, there's no real reason to think they're up with community norms and can be trusted with the tools. Not that they've even been utilizing them, per Black Kite's note of 4 actions in 15 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Without prejudice to their intent, I would expect an admin to be far more active, with the minimal rules being enforced technically but not being the actual bare minimum. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. RFAs/AdEs always ask why the user has the need for the tools. This admin said they were needed for closing XfDs, which they appear not to have done for nearly two decades. After so little activity for so long, the "need for the tools" question needs to be asked of Master Jay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. hbent (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No logged admin action since 01:39, 27 October 2020 and no activity at XfD since 2016 [1] despite running for admin saying they wanted to close XfDs. I think they should have to explain to the community why they still need the tools and confirm that they understand our new policies on Admins and expected behaviour as they have been quite inactive (500 edits goes back till 2007!) at RRfA. I still thank them for their helpful contributions but just think a confirmation would be helpful to ensure they maintain the trust of the community and a reason to use the tools! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 22:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Fewer than 50 edits in the past three years and no admin actions for over four years leads me to believe they do not have the commitment to the project expected of an administrator by the community. An account this inactive with the tools is a security risk since a bad actor could compromise the account and perform a significant amount of malfeasance before being blocked. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I was desysopped and inactive for about a decade. In retrospect, it was a good thing - I had no business being an admin when I returned. Here are 4 issues I didn't expect when I resumed editing; all apply to Master Jay given his lack of activity:
    • I'd lost proficiency in dealing with a very complex ruleset.
    • That ruleset had grown in complexity - no new policies but dozens of new subparagraphs, exceptions, etc.
    • Once desysopped, this no longer applied to me, but the community's expectations of admin competence and professionalism had clearly risen.
    • The community's culture had changed.
    I encourage Master Jay to either resign or get at least 1000 edits in admin-related areas (deletion, noticeboards) running for admin again. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I was initially on the fence but have been persuaded by the arguments that unused tools are a security risk. The online security hazards have grown enormously since Master Jay's last period of significant activity eighteen years ago. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Besides casting aspersons, the thread Writ shared above shows serious lack of judgement and perhaps that of policy knowledge:

    Shouldn't you recuse yourself from commenting here if you are a personal acquaintance?
    — own user talk page, in reply to RexxS vouching for Sitush not having any connection with an anonymous troll 00:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    MJay continued with the aspersion unrepentantly, only withdrawing it when a CheckUser came by. They never apologized for it even after others asked them for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I don't see any significant evidence suggesting that Master Jay is up to speed on the increasingly complex community norms that have changed over the past decade and a half. I've also looked into the 2019 resysop petition and it seems like the planned return to activity never came to fruition. Since admins have significant social capital and need to lead by example, I feel like it would unfair to have a clear double standard in comparison to the high requirements placed upon modern RfA candidates. If Master Jay becomes more active at some point in the future and would iron out these concerns regarding communication and activity, I would probably support a future RfA down the line. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. This should have gone to RFA in 2019. Yes, we raised the minimum standards for automatic removal of rights later, but by design they're still easy to game. Difficult-to-game standards could be written, but the community would rather handle it manually. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2) made that explicit, and largely in direct response to this specific case. —Cryptic 01:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Master Jay either doesn't understand the problem with gaming the system, or does understand it and is putting on an act. I don't particularly care which it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. De-admin. Legacy account that has not been contributing to the project. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Since I am being made an example of, my comment for posterity is this. Change the inactivity policy. Investigate and subject all 848 admins to this “new” standard. The ones that should be gotten rid of, summarily get rid of. The ones that should be kept, keep. If not, this recall shall set a new precedent.

Now my own opinion (and I pre-emptively agree to disagree with the commentary after this)

Adminship to one may be a power user that makes thousands of edits per month. Adminship to someone else may be making no consistently disruptive edits and keeping the peace for 20 years. Regardless of what you believe, let’s have this consensus discussion on what the modern admin should be, and if there is a role old curmudgeons still have.

I believe there should be more admins, and that legacy admins have a role, and that if there is no disruption to the site or security issues (which can be addressed by say forcing a high security password change annually — not edit count) one should stay on. Agree to disagree. But as I said in my opening, change the policy for all. —-Master Jay (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Just noting that, while this user signs "Jay", they should not be confused with active admin Jay. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to look at this and think "well of course they shouldn't have tools!" Except, I'm left with the question of ....why? Are they gaming the system? Maybe. Are they doing it for vanity? Maybe. Are those reasons to remove the admin mop? Not according to WP:INACTIVITY. So...why? My concern isn't about bureaucratic lawyering here. My concern is; where do we draw the line? Master Jay has complied with our requirements. In return, we're going to strip away his admin flag. We have no record of Master Jay doing anything wrong, other than an accusation about something from five years ago. We're assuming because he's largely inactive that he most certainly will mess something up. Yet, that's what WP:INACTIVITY is supposed to address. So, where did WP:AGF go? Do we now have some unpublished standard of inactivity that needs to be met? What are those standards? What standards did Master Jay fail to hold to? Barring an answer to those questions, I have to oppose this recall. I realize this isn't a consensus building discussion, but it needs to be said. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft I am sympathetic to your argument and if it happened for 1-2 years, I'd agree. We can see no malicious edits or admin actions were made. However the tooling allows more activities that are not easily detectable for example looking at deleted content. As a good security practice we should minimize such tools where it's broadly not necessary. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been inactive for 14 years. You mention WP:AGF, but I don't really think this is punishment, but just that they no longer need the bit. Where the line is drawn, well, people at the RRFA can decide that. Their last admin action was 4 and half years ago. Shushugah is right that this is also a poor security practice, as they can view deleted content. WP:INACTIVITY tries to address this, but fails in this case. win8x (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    viewdeleted isn't much of a security concern (deleted content should not be considered meaningfully private; anything needing that level of privacy should be suppressed), but there's lots of mischief someone could get up to with a compromised account. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair enough. I just wanted to point out security risks, without signing the petition outright. win8x (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do we draw the line? The line should be whether there's serious doubt they'd be given admin rights if they requested them today. I don't believe that Master Jay would pass an RfA, so I don't believe they should have the associated tools. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kinda have to agree with Hammersoft here. They are meeting the standards as spelled out, and they aren't abusing the tools. I don't see the need, urgent or otherwise, to take the tools away from them pre-emptively. And the reasoning of "they're not up on current community norms" is honestly bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS given there's no evidence for that (again, there is no abuse of the tools) and no way to have evidence for that (or can we publically track pages viewed by an account nowadays?). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no public way to directly track pages viewed by an account, and I don't believe there is a private way either, short of obtaining their browsing history (which for practical purposes is not possible and wouldn't be completely reliable even if it were). If an editor is sharing deleted material then it will be possible to tell this in some cases, although it will not always be possible to determine who is doing the sharing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting a recall petition without first even attempting to discuss the issue with the administrator first is not something I can support in any circumstances. If the matter is urgent, then it should be brought before the arbitration committee, if it isn't that serious and/or that urgent then discussion should happen first. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, I'll point out that at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_40#Resysop_request_(Master_Jay) the community tried, hard, to get this editor to communicate. The discussion was extensive. The editor was asked many multiple times to chime in and only posted, once, in response: "I have read through all your comments. I have meant no harm or foul in procedurally requesting this resysop due to inactivity. I plan on participating again earnestly." That was in 2019. Since then they've made just enough edits to keep from being procedurally desysopped. Why are you thinking this is something I shouldn't have done? Valereee (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was six years ago in a discussion that resulted in them regaining the administrative tools. That is absolutely not an attempt to communicate that (some or all of) the community is currently so dissatisfied with their engagement that the tools could be removed without further communication. There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to jump straight to recall without attempting to discuss the matter first. Discussion about a previous matter six years ago is not discussing the matter first. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've made fewer than 100 edits in those six years. They were willing to do zero engagement then, and they've had basically zero engagement in that time. I'm flummoxed, Thryduulf. Why do you think they have any understanding of WP in 2025? I am not trying to be a hardass, here. I am legitimately puzzled. Valereee (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying they should be an administrator, I'm saying that you (or someone else) should have attempted to discuss your concerns with them before initiating a recall. If you had discussed it with them and been unsatisfied with the response (or not gotten any response) I would almost certainly be supporting. What I cannot support is recalling an administrator without prior discussion of the concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf, I respect you. But the community has attempted to discuss. See this. Valereee (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat that was six years ago. Your concerns now are in significant part that they have not done what they promised to do six years ago. You have not attempted to discuss that with them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But they're still gaming the system now. You really believe it's unfair that we're pointing out that they're gaming the system now? Valereee (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not complaining that you are pointing out they are currently gaming the system. I'm complaining that you are raising your concerns in the wrong manner at the wrong venue. You need to at least attempt to discuss your concerns with Master Jay before initiating a recall petition. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If RECALL wasn't a thing and you brought this as an arbcom case request with the only prior dispute resolution being a discussion from six years ago the request would be speedily declined with instructions to try and resolve the issue with the admin directly before coming to arbcom trying to get them desysopped. Recall existing should not relieve you of the burden of attempting to discuss things with the admin concerned first. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf, but why do I need to discuss with someone who has basically refused to reasonably discuss in fifteen years? Why do I need -- now that we have the tools -- to go, "Okay, new rules. You can't be a dick anymore." Valereee (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? We're taking an administrator to task for being inactive but as evidence of trying to communicate with them we're using a discussion ...FROM SIX YEARS AGO? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft, they 99% refused to respond in that discussion. Read it. Valereee (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? I don't care if there were 50 discussions from before 2019 leading up to 2019. The discussion was from 2019. I have to concur with Thryduulf. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Someone refusing to respond to your satisfaction in a discussion in 2019 is not justification for not attempting to engage with them in 2025. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If you (Valereee) don't understand why you should discuss your concerns with an administrator before attempting to get them desysopped then I seriously question your suitability to be an administrator. Just because a discussion six years ago didn't result in the action you wanted is not a justification for ignoring the dispute resolution process and jumping straight to recall. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, Thryduulf. I'm sorry you feel that way. Valereee (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of us "feel[ing]" this way. Valeree, you failed to attempt to communicate with this administrator. You failed to follow the instructions at WP:RECALL telling you to inform the administrator of this recall. Someone else had to do it for you [2]. You failed to follow the further instructions at WP:RECALL and didn't post a notice to WP:AN, as required. Someone else had to do it for you [3]. This is bad form all around. No one's going to start a recall about you over this, but in the future please be more careful, follow WP:DR, and follow the instructions at WP:RECALL. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New to the process. Literally had no idea how to make it work. Thanks to GreenLipstickLesbian who fixed my work. Valereee (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know how to make a process work, then you need to take the time to learn how before you attempt to use it. If you don't understand after reading the instructions, then ask someone. There was absolutely no urgency here that meant you needed to act before knowing how to act. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask, and it got fixed. There are any number of issues that need info, but this issue, this editor? I can get you that info. I didn't do it because it looked like it would be humiliating for the editor. I can do it, but I'd prefer not to. Valereee (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft @Thryduulf I'm less than thrilled about my actions being brought up in this way. The petition was started, and Valereee commented five minutes later at WP:BN that she was having trouble making the transclusion work (because that part, to the best of my knowledge, is not currently explained in the instructions. I stepped in and fixed it for her. While I was doing that, I noticed that she'd likely been distracted by the fact the petition hadn't gone "live" and didn't do the notifications - so I decided to fix that as well. During this fourteen minutes delay, fourteen minutes where Valereee was occupied actively seeking help [[4][5]. I literally did not give her a chance to do the notifications herself - but I thought that was okay, because the important thing at that point was making sure Master Jay knew about the petition, and making sure that the community knew. I did that to help out. If I had known somebody was going to try and hold it over or criticize the person I was helping, I would not have done so. GreenLipstickLesbian💌✨ 01:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should be commended for your efforts, GLL. My 00:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC) comment was (especially with "...but in the future...") to try to bring the heat down a bit, not raise it. No action is going to come out of this, nor should it. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be neutral or even weakly opposed if there were no more concerns than just only making 21 edits per year, especially with the lack of prior discussion that has been pointed out. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially I hear y'all saying that the activity requirements still haven't been raised high enough. Don't take your frustrations out on this random editor. Start another RfC to raise the activity requirements yet again – that would be the fair way to address your concerns. It's not like this guy's skipping out and calling in sick too often for a job you're paying them to do. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the activity requirements are presently fine and would oppose raising them further – when someone is cognisant of the requirements and is intentionally staying right above them for an extended period of time, that is when I take issue. charlotte 👸♥ 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this petition posted at CENT, so will be not voting for their removal as I would not have known about this petition if not for the violation of rules. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 00:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What triggered this petition? Did the filer just stumble across their name recently? Seems odd to pick them out when there are other barely active admins. There should been the courtesy of an approach on their talk page before this was launched. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi mentioned them in the discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Community discussion on cratchat but did not inform them on their talk page or via ping that they had been mentioned, so from Master Jay's perspective this has very likely apparently come out of the blue. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much against this. Perhaps Jay should give up the bit, but I don't think he should be made to. And his recent irritability is understandable, if not to be condoned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • What is the purpose of having explicitly proscribed standards of sufficient activity, if we're just going to ignore them and arbitrarily decide people aren't doing enough? If what he's doing isn't enough, why in damnation did we make a bunch of rules saying it was enough? jp×g🗯️ 01:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we have clear, hard rules that definitively determine when someone is certainly inactive. However, there are cases like this where the admin’s status is more ambiguous and can't be fit into a neat little box of "active" or "not active" - they are slightly active and we should have a discussion to determine if it is enough in this case considering more than just numbers. While they may technically meet the activity threshold, they aren’t making any logged or unlogged admin actions in 5 years and only just meet the threshold to remain an admin each year (which raises a little suspicion, in the nicest way possible). That’s why I signed my name - to encourage a community discussion at RRfA, as I feel this situation warrants broader input. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 01:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have an explicitly proscribed standard of sufficient activity, we have an activity-related trigger for an automatic desysop process. None of the rules say the activity is "enough" for anything more than not triggering that automatic process. CMD (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the main issue is the or intends to return to activity as an editor in the WP:RESYSOP policy. The community doesn't benefit from the bureaucrats' decision being based on assurances rather than actual activity. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rules were really broken, but JayCubby still thinks Master Jay ought to engage more with adminship. It hasn't risen to the level of warranting desysop, but the inactivity is a valid concern. JayCubby 01:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote in 2019, I appreciate that the community likes administrators to be "one of us", and that activity levels are one way to measure this. I think the recall petition process, though, is better suited for determining when the community wishes to re-examine the degree of trust held by an administrator. I don't think it's a good use of time to start running recall petitions for everyone approaching the inactivity requirements. I think it would better to discuss raising the activity thresholds instead, thus avoiding a bevy of personalized discussions. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2025 (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/Master_Jay&oldid=1281067319"