Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates/UtherSRG: Difference between revisions

UtherSRG (talk · contribs) – I have been here for over 20 years, and as an admin for much of that time. I mostly edit on taxonomy articles, patrol on my watchlist and the AFC acceptance page, and help out on Requests for undeletion and some similar boards. I take a certain pride in seeing a draft I’ve restored become a valid article (in part why I patrol my watchlist), and disappointed when I see such fail (even when it was obviously doomed). I have had a recall petition run on me and it succeeded. I’m running to retain my admin bit. If I am successful here, I would welcome a discussion on whether I should retain the full admin toolkit or if the toolkit should be limited in some way. – UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nominated, so yes, I accept. UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I’ve been an admin here for many years. I took a long break and, when I came back, found a Wikipedia that had changed much without me. In many ways, those changes are good. In some, not so much. In looking to improve the project, I took some bold moves that skirted over the bounds of acceptable behavior. In trying to course correct my style of adminning, it took me too long to hear the message, and I corrected too slowly. A recall petition against me was successful, and I am running to see if the general population has lost faith in me, or if the general population of editors still supports me.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I never know how to answer superlative questions like “best”. Instead, I can provided several things that I consider in the range of “best”. I have a lot (but not infinite) time that I dedicate to working here. I have some significant history here (though that history is definitely of the mixed variety). I am dedicated to improving the project and honestly care about this place.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I don’t know any adult who hasn’t had some form of stress that they’ve had to navigate, and I’m no exception. I’d like to say that I’m always good at handling stressful conflicts, but I know I’ve failed from time to time. I try to take a step back and let all heads involved cool down before coming back to the reexamine the conflict, as cooler heads more generally prevail than hot ones. When stepping back, it’s also sometimes good to tag friend to take a look at the situation while cooling down, as multiple perspectives can help shed light on the situation.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

4. Can you expand upon your answer to #2? Your current answer does not offer any concrete/clear examples of your contributions to Wikipedia. (Question edited per monitor comment.)

A: Ok, how about I run through the things I do; because what I do are the things I generally like doing, so I suppose could be considered my best contributions. I hope this will satisfy. I start off on my watchlist, starting on the oldest and working my way up to the present. I look for a variety of things: Has there been any vandalism, over zealous editing, AI use, issues with MOS or readability, etc? Has a question been asked on a talk page that I can handle? When I get to WP:RFUD, I do what I can to handle any outstanding requests there. When I get to WP:Articles for creation/recent I look at the preview of the new articles and see if the preview looks good enough (bold and italics are correct, preview starts with the lead, there is a lead, title is correct, etc) and if not, fix them. Also on /recent if I see any taxonomy articles I jump in to do a more fuller inspection, cleaning up the taxobox, adding taxonbar, etc. (If anything, my work on cleaning up and maintaining the taxo-articles may be considered my “best” work.) Occasionally I’ll dip in to other notice boards like WP:UAA. Barring any breaks for doing things IRL, I’ll eventually get to the top of the watchlist, which I’ll refresh and start over. I also have an issue category I’m slowly working on to reduce the number of articles in it.

5. After the admin review, ANI threads, and recall petition, how have you reflected and grown from this experience so that the community can trust you to use the admin tools responsibly in the future?

A: As I think everyone in a similar situation has had to, I had to stop thinking that I was right, I had to stop thinking I was important. I had to stop to consider that Wikipedia’s PAG may have shifted, or that the user community’s expectations on admins (or in general) may have shifted, or that that my understanding of these things may have shifted, or that all of these things or more may have happened. I think I’ve been an admin here longer that a few trusted users have been alive. Things change. People change. In order to continue on, I needed to change as well. But change doesn’t happen overnight, nor did that understanding (despite the very specific call outs in the admin review, ANI, etc.). I also reflected on how I was approached about my errors vice how I’ve approached others on theirs, what the experience felt like, and how I responded. In some cases, I felt attacked, I dug into a trench, and I reacted poorly. I can see that that is also how others have reacted to my approach to them as well. This is bad on both ends. I have not fully course corrected; such a notion is absolutist. There is always room for growth and correction. But I’ll continue to strive for better.

6. If this election does reconfirm you, through what actions do you intend to regain the trust of the community, especially the people who signed the recall petition against you?

A: If I’m reconfirmed here, I would say that the community already has enough trust in me. However, it’s a low bar of trust. I certainly wish to improve that level, regardless of the results of the election. As I said in my answer to Q5 above, there is always room for growth and correction. I can point to Talk:Wildlife of Algeria as some small proof that I’ve at least begun amending my ways some (asking for neutral intervention where I’m involved), as that is a recent action and is on my mind. But specifically to the folks who signed my recall? First, I’ll acknowledge the harm done to them, the result of which is the loss of trust. That harm is, predominantly, being WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy, and by acting when INVOLVEd. None of this harm I feel can be directly remedied. The harm is done, the trust is lost. The only way I can see to regain that trust is to build it up again over time, taking more appropriate actions (such as asking for neutral assistance directly as I point out above or via boards like WP:3O), and exhibiting better attitude choices. I offer my sincere apology here and now to those who signed the recall, and those who I haven’t specifically reached out to.

7. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA, or re-adminship?

A: I’ll admit right up front that, though it was not the only thought in choosing which option to go with, the fact that this option has the lowest bar to success was a factor.

The biggest factor, though, is that this process provides more time, if I remember correctly, for the decision making process to complete, and so gives me the most time to demonstrate that I am worthy of trust. Regaining trust is not done instantly, it can only be done over time. Jumping immediately from the recall to another process would not have been enough time to show in any way that I’ve begun the process of change. I will not be very upset if I fail in this election, and even this small amount of time is likely to be too short to adequately demonstrate enough change. I thank the Bureaucrats that they saw wiggle room to allow me to run in this election without removing my admin bit. Keeping my bit and not desysoping me immediately has provided me some amount of time to begin to demonstrate that I can be trusted. Had I chosen RfA or re-adminship, I would have had even less time to engender trust.

Another factor in choosing this route is that, because it is a regularly scheduled event, it gets more community participation, or at least that’s my hope. The recall petition is not broadcast, so only folks who are already interested in it may even know that it is happening and, as such, it’s a limited audience. I think this same limitation is true for RfA and re-adminship, though I could be mistaken. Having broader community participation I think is better in general, and I expect it will show that I’ve helped far more folks in my time as admin and that they will rally in support. And whether I’m wrong or right on this, I’ll have an even greater understanding of where I stand.

8. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?

A: I see that you’ve asked this question on all of the other candidates’ election pages, so I don’t think you are particularly asking about my particular past behaviors, there is no way I can answer that without the answer being informed by such. The answer I have is: any action. Any action can be the most sensitive, if it undermines the nature of the project or erodes the communities trust in the adminship (in one specific admin or as a whole). User block, IP range blocks, page (un)protections, page deletions, page renames, rollback…. any of these can be, in the moment, the most sensitive if doing so is done in a poor manner.

9. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?

A: Well, having been through it and being recalled, I’ll say it’s not the best feeling in the world. 25 signatures seems like a low bar, especially with no allowance for “don’t recall” signatures to offset that.

10. Would you please summarize what you think were the main concerns of the editors who signed your recall petition?

A: As I stated in my answer to Q6 above: Taking actions when involved, being bitey, and being owny were the main concerns of the petitioners. I’m guessing, since you asked this well enough after I answered Q6 that my answer there wasn’t satisfactory. I’ll go further with the answer to say that I got to that point by allowing my goodfaith meter to erode, and desiring to just fix things myself instead of taking a pause and asking for assistance, which amounts to being impatient. I’ll also quote myself from an ANI thread: If there were an admin training program, I’d take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I’d sign up and ask for a mentor. I may have said similar elsewhere. I know I’ve thought it a few times.

11. You said In many ways, those changes are good. In some, not so much. Could you clarify how you think Wikipedia’s norms have changed for the worse, and how you think such issues could be resolved?

A: I didn’t say the changes in Wikipedia’s norms had good and bad, I had said Wikipedia. I’ll expand upon what I said there, including giving more background. I made my first edit 22 years ago and edited frequently for about 5-6 years. I became an admin during that period of activity. I was unable to find time for more than a few dozen or so edits a year for about a decade after that. Early in those fallow years the “great admin purge” of 2011/2012 happened. I came back strong in 2022.

Changes in my fallow years include some nifty tech enhancements like the WP:Automatic taxobox system, new admin/enhanced user support boards like WP:UAA, WP:RMTM, and WP:RFU, and many many new/update policies and processes. But also, the world became more contentious and also more aware of Wikipedia, leading to more contentiousness here. That’s definitely in the “not so good” realm. In between that are some generally good outreaches like the WikiEdu program, where college courses utilize Wikipedia to teach and learn. While there are some positives here, in that students get some good instruction on how to use Wikipedia in their educational career, there are also negatives in very poorly written articles that don’t fit the encyclopedia in various ways being pushed into main article space without more that their classmates saying go for it, and with course instructors being very naive on what fits the encyclopedia. Oh yes… and AI.

12. Would you consent to a restriction from using certain admin tools and allow uninvolved admins to block you for violating those restrictions (e.g. similar to something Graham 87 eventually agreed to at his RRFA for blocking and unblocking (Qs 12-17) and Lustiger seth’s commitment made at his his RFA for anything beyond the spam blocklist (Q5))? If so what would those restrictions be?

A: Yes, I would be amenable to having something similar, if that’s what the community feels is the best way to approve of me retaining the mop. I think the proposed restrictions should come from a member of the community. Since the tool use in general isn’t the issue, but the use of them in WP:INVOLVED situations, I’m curious how this would be proposed/implemented.

12.1 Since you are either unwilling or unable to identify any particular admin tool that might warrant restrictions, can you clarify what the prerequisite for any restrictions would be? Is it a “community feel[ing]” that would presumably have to be arrived at before the discussion phase closes after December 8, or is it simply something that can “come from a member of the community”?

A:

13. Taxonomy articles require quite specific care, such as making sure the article is accurate according to science, complicated names are handled appropriately and quelling any disruptive editing occurrences. If you encounter such an article that has ongoing developments and discoveries being made, with conflicting information from different, but still credible reliable sources, how do you assess which administrative actions or edits to make that ensures fair accuracy for the reader?

A:

14. This is a sort of follow-up to your answer in Q7, where you say “even this small amount of time is likely to be too short to adequately demonstrate enough change“. With your belief that now may be too soon to demonstrate a sustained period of change, why did you not opt to accept the desysop and give yourself greater time until the next AELECT, or an RFA in a few months?

A:

15. Could you explain what the WP:INVOLVED policy means to you, and specifically the “any reasonable administrator” clause?

A:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Please do not cast votes here. The voting phase will use SecurePoll and will occur on December 9–15 UTC.

• Hi, UtherSRG. It’s been quite frustrating to have to wait for December 4 to be allowed to comment/ask questions, because I wanted somewhat urgently to supply links to the various discusssions of your adminning. I see User:Tarlby got here earlier than I did, and asked a question above, where they provided four pertinent links; I will add the ‘crat discussion as to whether you should be allowed to run in this election. It seems obvious to me that users who’re not already aware of what happened need those five links in order to form an opinion of your history and your suitability for adminship. I’m a little surprised you didn’t think to provide them yourself, but merely the less helpful general sentence “I have had a recall petition run on me and it succeeded”. Anyway, the links are here now, so people can inform themselves. Bishonen | tålk 00:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

   Monitor note: This refers to a question that has been removed for now, as most of its material was more appropriate for the discussion section (see talk page note). I see that @Sohom Datta provided the links below before I could finish writing my comment, and @Tarlby is of course welcome to elaborate on these here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Tarlby’s question got removed, adding the following links so that folks can access them: the admin action review that unanimously overturned a block, the subsequent ANI thread, the other ANI thread about the admin actions, and, the recall. — Sohom (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See also

  GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think User talk:UtherSRG#Admin discussion, and the section immediately below it, User talk:UtherSRG#Today’s protection of Pygmy rabbit, are also important reading. — asilvering (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Monitor comment: We would invite Natg 19 to rephrase their question to be more neutral if possible. We feel that the post-question commentary could be perceived as combative and is outside the scope of Q2. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ThadeusOfNazereth, I don’t really know how Uther could be expected to successfully interpret the intent of the question without the succeeding sentence. — asilvering (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, as I went to sleep basically immediately after posting that comment – Was Chaotic’s explanation below clear enough? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the last clause about voting. Hopefully that makes the question more neutral. Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a clarification, one of our main worries (which Thadeus mentions when saying the last part was outside the scope of Q2) was that this could be a two-in-one question, as why voters should vote for you to reinstate you as an administrator is a different question entirely, which you are welcome to ask separately. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, thanks for the explanation! It was not my intent to ask a two-parter. Natg 19 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A little note I will make about the answer to Q5 is that Recall typically has a 30 day window for the admin to start the reconfirmation request, meaning had Uther decided to go through the RRfA route, the latest he could have started it was November 21st. Going through AELECT means the day editors will express their decision is December 9th, which is 19 days later than if he went through RRfA. So Uther is right about the fact that he gets more time (a lot more) to try to demonstrate that he can be trusted. fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to vote against Uther, but I’ve decided to give him one last shot; if he doesn’t pull his weight as an admin, there always WP:ADRC (edit at 13:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC): albeit after 12 months) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator’s last successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or re-request for adminship, or within twelve months of the administrator being elected an administrator or elected to the Arbitration Committee. Assuming a successful election, any requested action against a user who passed RRfA would instead require a discussion at AN/ANI within that 12 month period. —Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Major overlook there

  Thanks lol

  – Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be possible for Uther to waive this requirement, per this clause of WP:ADMINRECALL: Historically, many administrators have been open to voluntary recall … admins can additionally create and follow their own independent recall process, including modified versions of this process that make it easier for them to be recalled. While this would ordinarily be a voluntary commitment, I imagine that in this case it would be treated as enforceable given it’s been made as part of the formal AELECT process. While I’m not going to ask the candidate as I don’t think having an answer will change my vote, feel free to ask a followup question along these lines if you think it might change yours. Preimage (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it’s not, at least not in a binding manner. I raised this at the abortive admin recall reworkshop last year, but was shot down. [1] Historically, admins making themselves open to recall voluntary has always been an entirely voluntary and non-binding process that they can simply choose not to follow through, as the page itself makes clear. There was also some discussion of this at about non-binding nature of any commitments made in an RRFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2, the post-recall RRFA that failed.

  In any case, Uther has not indicated that he is going to waive this, so no one should assume that is the case. If he passes, for a year, the only ways to remove the admin bit would be through ARBCOM, barring behaviour that would merit a sitewide ban. — Patar knight – ^chat/_{contributions} 19:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Uther mentions an admin mentorship program in Q10. The 2024 RfA Reform saw consensus for such a program, but so far come nothing has from it as development seems to have slowed to a halt. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike Arbcom which is less transparent and leaves no scope for appeal, although RECALL is harsh too, it does have the potential to provide another chance and at a reduced threshold. I think it’s time to break the spell that being dragged to Arbcom or RECALL practically means permanent loss of tools and duties to the project, and shaming and shunning. Uther has reconised his faults already during the ANI and will certainly have learned from them. Giving him a chance to prove himself again as an admin is not going to break this Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• i see very little to give me confidence that they have really taken anything on board which led to the recall. They still revert newbies or IPs[2] and leave them a warning for unconstructive editing[3], even though the edit was not unconstructive at all as it was correct[4]. Here as well they reverse an IP because “redlinks are not badlinks”, except that the link was a bluelink, but lead to the wrong person[5]. UtherSRG still make the same careless reverts and warnings of newbies that were a major part of what lead to the recall in the first place, so I see no reason to change the outcome of that process. Fram (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Concerning to see these diffs after similar concerns were expressed during the recall process. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]