Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests

Recalls

Piotrus 1

Admin: Piotrus (talk · contribs)
Request: made 23 June 2006; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful; threshold not met.

Merovingian

Admin: Merovingian (talk · contribs)
Request: made 19 July 2006; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful/withdrawn.

Crzrussian

Admin: Crzrussian (talk · contribs)
Request: made 7 August 2006; archived here
Result: Successful; threshold met. Crzrussian chose to resign rather than seek immediate reconfirmation, and was resysopped at RfA two months later.

Bunchofgrapes

Admin: Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs)
Request: made 21 August 2006; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful; threshold not met.

Friday

Admin: Friday (talk · contribs)
Request: made 23 December 2006; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful; threshold not met.

Piotrus 2

Admin: Piotrus (talk · contribs)
Request: made 21 January 2007 by User:Irpen who saw Piotrus' conduct in the conflict with Ghirlandajo and Dr. Dan as "unethical" and "unbecoming for an admin"; archived here and here
Result: Unsuccessful, as only a single user made the request. Piotrus has specified his criteria (six editors in good standing by his own criteria, on a matter related to admin tools). Piotrus asserted that the matter is not related to the use of admin tools; the discussion ended 1) according to Irpen "after Piotrus repeatedly refused to answer" and 2) according to Piotrus 2) "before it was made clear" whether Irpen meets Piotrus' own criteria for good standing.

Comment. I will state here clearly for the future record that one of my requirements is "that the user should be neutral towards my person." Irpen is not neutral towards my person, as has been determined by ArbCom. I thought it was obvious then, and I certainly hope it is obvious now. EOT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misza13

Admin: Misza13 (talk · contribs)
Request: made 10 May 2007 by User:Nae'blis, because of a bot used to block improper user names; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful. Only a single user made the request, several users disagreed, and the matter of recalling was not responded to any further.

Ryulong 1

Admin: Ryulong (talk · contribs)
Request: made 20 July 2007; over perceived newbie-biting and an overly harsh block; archived here
Result: After some discussion and an apology by Ryulong, the five requesters withdrew their request for a recall.

Ryulong 2

Admin: Ryulong (talk · contribs)
Request: made 24 August 2007; archived here
Result: Unsuccessful. Everyking asked what Ryulong's criteria for being recalled were; the response was that he had yet to flesh out those things, but was "unwilling to bend to [Everyking's] sudden whims for a lynching".

Durova

Admin: Durova (talk · contribs)
Request: begun 21 November 2007; archives 1 2 3 4 5
Result: Following recall requests made at her talk page, at AN/I, and in an RfC, together with escalation of the root issue to ArbCom, Durova resigned her adminship.

Mercury

Admin: Mercury~enwiki (talk · contribs) (then known as Mercury (talk · contribs))
Request: begun 10 December 2007, based on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Angela_Beesley, the block of !!, and his nonsupport for arbitration committee candidacy; to the relevant discussion.
Result: Recall was brought up on user talk. Mercury removed himself from the category, then later reconsidered and agreed to the recall proceedings. After the recall petition was certified and the recall RFC started, Mercury removed himself from the category again and declared the RFC closed. The next day Mercury requested that his bit be removed.

Keilana 1

Admin: Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun January 6, 2008, suggested by User:Dihydrogen Monoxide (now User:Giggy) after discussion on WT:RFA (currently found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 114). The reconfirmation was successful, passing at 133/8/10 on January 13.

SirFozzie 1

Admin: SirFozzie (talk · contribs)
Request: begun 20 January 2008, started by User:PouponOnToast after discussions on user talk. The recall was withdrawn by PouponOnToast at the urging of others, without any further petitioners supporting, on January 21.

Elonka 1

Admin: Elonka (talk · contribs)
Request: begun 26 January 2008, started by User:PHG, apparently as part of a larger dispute. A number of other editors commented saying that the matter was a content dispute, that Elonka should not honor the request, or that the request was unnecessary. Elonka declined the request as not made in good faith, noting that it was made within 1/2 hour of PHG coming off a block (made by another admin), on 27 January. PHG commented on 30 January but no other editor supported the request.

Keilana 2

Admin: Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun January 31, 2008, requested by User talk:100%freehuman, who was later blocked for disruption and for abuse. discussed on her talk page, on AN/I, AN, and denounced widely. The request was then removed by clerk AndonicO as a bad-faith request.

Keilana 3

Admin: Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun February 2, 2008, requested by anon User talk:75.72.88.121 for protection of the page Palestinian people. The request was removed by admin Dreadstar.

SirFozzie 2

Admin: SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun 22:57, 8 May 2008 [1] by Kmweber for administrator warning Kmweber on Disruptive Editing and Civility. Recall did not reach threshold within alloted two weeks.

GRBerry

Admin: GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), archived here
Request: begun 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC), [2] by ScienceApologist. No specific reason was given. Default process used. Recall did not reach threshold within allotted week.[reply]

Elonka 2

Admin: Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC) [3] by Jehochman. A fair amount of discussion, including additional endorsements, comments by those opposed to recall, questions about process and so forth ensued. This representative diff shows the state after a few days ([4] ... read down several sections). On August 10, Elonka indicated she wasn't going to resign. [5][reply]

MBisanz

Admin: MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun 13:04 3 March 2009 (UTC) [6] by Brrryce, (incorrectly formatted) and later corrected, 48 hour clock started at 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC) by clerk Sarcasticidealist. Brrryce selected "Deletion policy" when selecting a reason, alleging that an article was improperly deleted by MBisanz. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/African_Americans_in_Davenport,_Iowa for the deletion. Unsuccessful as of 05:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [7]. Closed by Sarcasticidealist. No administrators supported the recall.[reply]

SarekOfVulcan

Admin: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: begun 15:45, 28 October 2009 (utc) [8] by Sarek at the request of Ottava Rima. Process being used is User:Lar/Accountability. Two editors certified the petition. The petition was closed as unsuccessful at 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC), by clerk Master of Puppets. Final version here.[reply]

Blueboy96

Admin: Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: Started 23:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC) by Blueboy96 at the request of User:Fences and windows, using Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. The required 6 editors with at least 500 edits/1 month tenure requested a reconfirmation RfA, resulting in Blueboy96 standing down as an admin until outside circumstances allow for a reconfirmation RfA.[reply]

Herostratus

Admin: Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: started 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC). Petition gained the necessary 6 signatures within 7 days.[reply]
Herostratus chose to submit himself (under the "standard process") to a reconfirmation RfA. This being the first time this had been done, there was a bit of thrashing around about details of the process but after extended discussions in various locations, it all worked out OK, and is here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. The bureaucrats, who normally close RfA, declined to have anything to do with this on grounds that they're not able to desysop anyone. So candidate in an ad hoc measure asked a trio of editors to close the RfA -- an admin, an editor, and the candidate himself. Two of the three (the editor and the candidate) indicated the request was not successful (offering their rationales on the talk page of the request) and the third indicated there was no consensus to desysop and that there was consensus that the candidate did not abuse his administrative rights.

Herostratus requested the removal of his administrative rights from the stewards at Meta-Wiki, indicating that he did so by "under a cloud" provisions (meaning that admin rights should not be restored unless another RfA is run).

Looie496

Admin: Looie496 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Request: initiated 15:01, 19 January 2011. Kingpin clerked. Petition gained the necessary 5 admin endorsements within 2 days.
Looie496 resigned adminship and it was removed at Meta.

La goutte de pluie

Admin: La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs)
Request: made 22 August 2011; available here
Result: Successful. La goutte de pluie set a threshold of six neutral community members asking for recall, and resigned once this threshold was met.

Courcelles

Admin: Courcelles (talk · contribs)
Request: made 8 April 2012; available [9]
Result: Not certified. On the threshold of acceptance, the nominator decided that he did not meet the standards presented, which required that six neutral wikipedians in good standing certify. The nominator did not meet those standards (though there was question as to if nominators were required to do so, or merely certifiers), so he declined to continue the nomination. A new nominator stepped in, but after other certifiers, contacted by their mentor, withdrew their certification, the proposal failed to meet the threshold.

The Rambling Man

Admin: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Request: made 26 June 2015; available here. The Rambling Man opened a recall request on himself, saying that "Recent events have demonstrated that there are serious question marks over my ability to conduct myself as an admin" and that "The time has come that I do the right thing and submit myself to the community".
Result: After five days, the request was closed as a "clear consensus" that The Rambling Man should not self-recall.

WJBscribe (bureaucrat)

Admin: WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
Request: made 26 June 2019; available here
Result: WJBscribe resigned both bureaucratship and adminship while the request was ongoing, citing reasons 'irrespective of the "recall" discussion'.