Left guide

JWB request

I apologize for my past actions and for clearing my talk page. I understand that my communication was poor, and I am ready to follow the community's feedback and respond to all concerns on my talk page properly. I promise to use JWB responsibly and strictly follow the Manual of Style. Please give me a chance to show that I can improve. Astra.L (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Astra.L: The best way to demonstrate real behavioral change is via actions and not just promises, so you already have a chance to show that you can improve now and in the near future. I'd suggest editing for another month or two where you follow through on these promises of being communicative and collaborative with others who raise good-faith concerns about your edits. Then you'd be in a better position to have a request for AWB/JWB that is persuasive to reviewing admins. Left guide (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Immunity

Hey, just thought I'd say my revert was also a bit more than just too soon I'll be honest. I'm acutely aware of the power dynamics in this discussion: I'm calling for the abolition of immunity and there are 'invincibles' who are very much being supportive and attempting to facilitate that proposal (such as yourself, but courtesy ping to @Chaotic Enby also). It just felt a bit off to me raising the importance of that discussion for that reason alone I think, followed by the lead balloon response so far. This potentially relates to a point I raised recently about 'silent complicity' (second paragraph): you'd have to read between the lines as to how that applies, but generally, I don't want any admin who has such 'immunity' to feel compelled to support/enable such proposals based on any feeling of responsibility, guilt, or otherwise. AS I'm also not trying to call anyone out here per I acknowledge that I'm suggesting 'trying to fix something that's not broken'. I'm not sure what I've written makes much sense, but maybe it provides some further context. I know you very much meant well by adding it to CENT, the reason I removed it was effectively in the same spirit :) kind regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: No worries on the revert. It's standard BRD stuff, and I can see how others find my edit premature. I mainly added to CENT out of concern to avoid a small group of 5–10 editors splintering off from the debrief to make a major change on recall that may not necessarily reflect broader community consensus. I'm actually not supportive of any particular position at the moment, though I can understand why some of my comments might lead someone to believe that I am depending on their perception. There's certainly no guilt or responsibility on my end; I just make assessments based on the merits of the arguments presented. And yes I agree that everyone is certainly acting in good faith. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

OK good to hear, that makes a lot more sense when you put it like that. Glad to hear it's not what I was concerned about, it's also impossible to tell the difference at face value. From my perspective, I've had half-baked ideas shot down a lot quicker, so I was party thinking "why is this still being entertained when it's DOA". I should try stop overthinking so much, get a bit more sleep I think. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor FWIW, I don't think it's in DOA -- I think it's an idea well worth discussing. Also, to continue the metaphorical language, just because something is DOA doesn't mean it's not worth seriously looking at. 'Cause, you know, organ donation. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm definitely not being compelled to support this proposal for any of these reasons, as I do support the idea of more admin accountability in general. Beyond it being a good thing on principle, the easier we can hold our admins accountable, the less we have to worry about a bad admin slipping through RfA/AELECT, and the more admins we can get. Additionally, I genuinely don't think your idea is anywhere close to DOA, otherwise the discussion would have probably been left to die out without being moved to WT:RECALL. I very much relate to being overly harsh about one's own proposals, and that is why it is very much a good thing to have other people help you assess the situation more objectively. And sleep definitely helps when spiraling, you're right! (bonus content) Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

NPR

Hi @Left guide!

I've requested at Wikipedia:PERM as suggested, aligning with my intention of reverting vandalism and malicious edits

Additionally, can I apply at NPR? I seemingly meet the guidelines stated therein. Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Retro music11: Sure, go ahead and make a fresh request for NPR with a relevant rationale. I'd highly recommend linking to this discussion showing my consent to ensure that other reviewing admins will assess it on merit and not procedurally decline it because I declined the first one. Left guide (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Left guide Thank you for responding. In that case should I withdraw my current request, considering procedural decline applies here? Retro music11 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Retro music11: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Leave the original NPR request there that I declined (because other admins probably won't take kindly to attempting to withdraw/remove a request that has been responded to), and then start a new one at the bottom of the page while mentioning that I allowed you to do so. Does this make sense? Left guide (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Done!

@Left guide Thank you kindly! Retro music11 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey LG

Could you revdelete this from my user page? Thanks! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9:  Done. Left guide (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)