WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request

• {{admin|Bbb23}}

Around six hours ago, a petition to initiate recall proceedings against Bbb23 reached the necessary 25 signatures, and has been closed as certified. Bbb23 indicated in that thread that they won't be standing for a reconfirmation RfA – I'll leave it to the 'crats on whether they want to change Bbb23's admin flag to sunset in 30 days from the closure of the petition or, absent a post from Bbb23 here, wait until the 30 days are up to discuss this again. Many thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Courtesy link|Special:Diff/1294241940|linktext=Bbb23's statement}} {{nbo}} 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:As Bbb23 explicitly said they are not resigning, no action right now. There is plenty of time for them to change their mind. If they don't, just drop a request here after it sunsets. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Exactly what Xaosflux said. I think in practice we should only really require a post here for one of two situations. 1. The time limit has elapsed, we need to remove the flag, or 2. There is a resignation of the tools.

:Either way, it should be when there is an action that we can take. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::For what it is worth I do not mind a notice about a recall petition reaching certification, as I pay much more attention to this page than the recall pages. I do agree with the others here that telling us that we have discretion as to what to do, when that's already in our mandate, does seem a little unnecessary ;-) Primefac (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't mind a notice here that something is going on. My response above was just that I wouldn't take any immediate action. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Barkeep49 had requested notifications on this page when recall petitions close in favour of a re-request for adminship. Bureaucrats do have the responsibility of communicating with the admin in question in order to understand their plans. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed I did and I agree with Xaosflux that all we need to do at this stage is acknowledge it. I do think it OK for the crats to act without further notice/reminding at 30 days (if a crat happens to think of doing so) in the same way that crats will otherwise implement removal procedures around activity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{Ec}} While obviously the crats have discretion to take no action yet, and I'm not one of them, is there any reason not to set the admin bit to expire in a month the moment a recall petition hits certification? If they RRFA and it passes, then a crat will be around to remove the expiry (and probably it's a good thing for the ceritified-but-failed recall to be present in the rights log in the name of accountability), and if not then it avoids the need to do something later when it falls off everyone's attention spans. Prior to the technical invention of temporary rights, temp rights were granted socially on other wikis via processes like m:Steward requests/Permissions/Approved temporary/m:Steward requests/Global permissions/Approved temporary, and a look at the history of those pages shows regular weeklong overages, several months-long ones, and one case that was forgotten about for five whole years. So we should save the trouble and push the button now rather than having to remember later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::The "do something later" part is what would be problematic; if I am reading your proposal right, after getting notification of a certified recall, we would flip the bit on the user's mop to expire in 30 days. Okay, so they run an RRFA, and they start it on the 29th day. Now we have to extend their temporary bit another seven days so that it doesn't expire during the RRFA. Let's say that it goes to a 'crat chat, so we have to extend again. It's easier to flip the bit when it's time to flip the bit rather than predict when it should happen and keep updating things. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree, no need to act early - there are at least 25 people that are following the recall, I have no doubt at least one of them would post here if it lapses. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I would also note that the crats have a small degree of discretion here. So in an instance where a candidate says "Hey I'm not going to have enough time to do an re-rfa until 31 days from now" (or some other reasonable amount over 30) I think, per WP:RRfA we could choose to wait on removal. That page actually says we could override a recall in a rare case but I'm having trouble coming up with a plausible scenario for that compared to a plausible ones where we let the re-rfa process stretch beyond 30 days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If a significant proportion of the petition signers were discovered to be sockpuppets of the same editor then I would hope the crats would not desysop. How plausible that scenario is I leave for others to judge. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::For that specific scenario, the guidance on Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy would suffice for the community itself to rescind the results of the petition. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed, but it is also a reason why we give the crats discretion. If we didn't then they would have to desysop pending community discussions concluding and then resysop. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Well, the question was regarding when the bureaucrats might override the results (I don't remember that footnote being added). I also struggle to think when the bureaucrats would just override the result, rather than allowing the community to make a decision appropriate for the specific circumstances. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Noting that that footnote, which was added a week ago without discussion, has now been removed by Tim Smith. This is correct, in my opinion: 'crats are able to ignore the recall rules in extraordinary cases, as with any other Wikipedia policy, but that's different from that being an explicit discretionary power. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is an explicit discretionary power. Wikipedia:Administrator recall: "Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats may remove their privileges." They are under no obligation to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Periodic reminder that users with tools are never obligated, and cannot be compelled, to use them. {{nbo}} 184.152.65.118 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::As far as I can recall, giving bureaucrats the discretion to override the results of a request for re-adminship was not discussed in the development of the process. The wording was chosen to allow for discretion around the timing. Sure, we can concoct various extraordinary circumstances where the results are unreliable, but given there's no deadline for an outcome, the community can be consulted on next steps—bureaucrats aren't expected to freelance what should be done. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I was the one choosing a number of the wording in the RFCs. If I recall correctly, I chose the "may remove" wording to allow for discretion, period. I did not see the point of writing it prohibitively when having the Bureaucrats as a layer would fix a lot of "If recall is worded too strongly, these edgecases may arise".

::::::::::::I remember discussions about both "Do crats have discretion on timing" and "Can crats just refuse to remove rights/What happens then", but I will have to dig to link them. I do agree that nobody has found a really strong arguments for Bureaucrats overriding community, other than just a counterpart to WP:IAR and WP:BUREAUCRACY.

::::::::::::Finally, I have no strong opinions on what the policy should be now. I do not see a harm in the current wording, but also do not see a problem in clarifying it further, now that we've survived the first few RECALLS without everything burning down. Soni (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::PAGs rather consistently discuss what users may do with permissions and what they must not do with them, that is not accidental. {{nbo}} 184.152.65.118 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Personally, I feel that the feedback from many contributors (including me) played a role in establishing the consensus intent for the wording. I agree there was and is a desire to avoid being overly prescriptive of every different possibility, allowing for judgement to be used. But this did not extend to explicitly allowing for an override. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That is fair. And you are probably right, my memory of the last few months has just merged together in a giant conglomerated mess. So I am remembering parts of the three different main RFCs of RECALL together. Soni (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure why this is an issue. Is there a concern that there won't be a crat immediately online at the 30-day mark? Are you concerned that some harm will come to Wikipedia if the tools aren't removed until 30 days + 1-2 hours? If so, what harm are you concerned about? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Euryalus, this whole process, from the initial AN discussion to the recall petition to its closure, happened very quickly, like over a period of 48 hours or so. It was like there was a fire lit under some members of the community. It would not surprise me if there weren't editors wanting this all to be concluded IMMEDIATELY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi Liz! Yes I noticed the short time frame but them's the rules of recall, there's no minimum time for a petition. Just curious why that rush extends to a member of Arbcom also coming to BN to make the case for yanking the tools on the dot of 30 days. But if there's no answer I won't press it. - Euryalus (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't say I'm in a rush, Euryalus, and my arb hat and boots are strictly for arb work. I also don't have a super-vested interest in trying to prevent Bbb23 from holding the tools for a second longer than 30 days – you're right, that'd be pretty silly. I do care a fair amount about how the community recall process will take shape, given that I was one of many people who helped facilitate its creation; I saw that Bbb23 noted their intent to let their adminship expire, and suggested to the crats that they could act on that now if they wanted to. Primefac raised some concerns on why that might end up creating more work that it gets out of the way, and I thought they and the other 'crats made good points – I wasn't pushing hard for it then and I'm not now. Recall is just a new process and it's helpful to figure out what our standard practices is going to be. I hope that answers your questions, but if it doesn't, my talk page is always open. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• So, this petition was open less than 9 hours, on a page hardly anyone knows about much less has on their watch lists, and then summarily closed as a fait accompli? Does this seem fair to anybody? How about people not on-wiki, or even awake, during those few (nine) hours? Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I think that the petition should have been open for a minimum of 24 hours to collect opinions from all places around the globe. However, in this case, I don't think it would have made any difference. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC).
• :Wikipedia:Administrator recall seems pretty clear on this. A petition needs 25 signatures from Wikipedians who meet certain criteria. The opinions of other Wikipedians are not relevant to that process, so no need to keep the discussion open for longer to give others a chance to join in. If you want to change the process, for example to include a section for those to sign who disagree with the petition, then this is not the place to file such an RFC. I can see the temptation to change the process to look more like an RFA, allow dissenters to !vote that they disagree and then require a net 25 at the end of 30 days. However that would mean that any extended confirmed editor could at any time start a recall RFA on any admin who had not recently been through some sort of election, I can't see that getting consensus. Whilst under the current system editors are free to encourage the admin targeted by the petition to stand in an RFA, after all, there have been successful RFAs with significantly more than 25 Wikipedians in the oppose section. In any event this is the Bureaucrats noticeboard, we don't make or change policy, we add or remove admin rights in accordance with policy. If you can come up with a fairer process than this one, then please propose that at WT:Administrator recall. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::In my opinion, you missed the entire point. Please read my post again. No such alarmingly serious undertaking should occur in less than 9 hours and then closed as binding based on the opinions of whatever 25 EC editors, however inexperienced or uninformed or misinformed or disingenuous, can show up and recall whatever admin they please based on an ANI thread which the accused had not yet responded to or petty grievances that any active anti-vandal admin collects over the course of their vandal-fighting. To purport that this is in any way fair or logical just because 'that's current policy' is in my opinion the height of folly if not hypocrisy. I can't see why crats are defending this as in any way logical or fair. This is why ArbCom exists -- to have a fair and balanced display of evidence and opinion from a variety of highly experienced editors, and allow the accused to respond appropriately and fairly. This seemed to me like a midnight lynching carried out hurriedly under the cover of darkness. Obviously, the recall procedure needs to be changed/reformed. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::On the contrary, the process is working perfectly well. The petition has established that there is a case to answer. To get the fair and balanced opinion of a variety of experienced editors, Bbb23 can now open an RfA, if they wish to — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It's not up to Bureaucrats to set policies but to carry them out. That's why they are elected, to be neutral and uncontroversial even when a policy might be judged to be controversial. There have been several efforts to address problems with our recall process but, frankly, I don't think they have drawn the attention they deserved to receive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm not defending this as either logical or fair, merely saying that this is not the page to change a policy such as that. When it comes to our policy on desysopping I've long held to the view that anyone who wants a particular sort of behaviour to be grounds for a desysop should propose that. I've not been impressed by schemes to have an additional route to desysop people who Arbcom isn't desysopping, without disclosing the sort of behaviours that you think an elected arbcom won't sanction but which you want to desysop people for. Arbcom is elected by the community, if someone asks a hypothetical question in the Arbcom elections and the community elects people who answer that in a particular way, then Arbcom is going to have more members who are likely to desysop admins who have the behaviour mentioned in that question. As for this particular case I've looked carefully at the petition but not yet at the thread that lead to it. If Bbb23 starts an RFA I'll probably do some research and !vote in the RFA, I'm very unlikely to be the crat who closes that sort of RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :If I remember the discussion over creating recall right, we decided not to advertise petition pages to protect admins. If a recall page has 10 signatories and 2 opposed, it dies. If it has 25 signatories and 50 opposed, it's certified. Recall petitions are a ratchet, not a consensus-building exercise, so an admin has nothing to gain from calling attention to it. I also don't think that a certified petition has to be a fait accompli – if Bbb23 felt that the signatories were an unrepresentative cabal and that the broader community were on his side, he could have run at RRfA (with a 50–60% threshold) and passed. If you're opposed to community-based recall, I can respect that – but I don't know of any design that would be able to retain an admin when the community has, both in number and consensus, lost confidence in them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I think the idea is that the 25-signature recall petition just checks if the admin is controversial enough to need a re-RFA, and then most actual discussion takes place during the re-RFA. I think the idea is that it doesn't matter during the recall phase if an admin has a lot of supporters or not, just that they are controversial enough to attract 25 folks who think they need a re-RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree with the intent but not the execution. The catch is that prolific blockers and popular meta-admins will always have relatively higher amount of detractors and supporters. qedk (t 愛 c) 00:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::This is exactly the problem with the 25 editor threshold. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to Softlavender's position here. And by extension, I guess, Bbb23. There being minimal checks and balances on signatories allows for editors such as {{noping|Luis7M}} to play a part. FTR, if this comes across as unfair disenfranchisement, talk page threads such as this and this speak volumes. It may only be one editor out of 25, but no one should have their fate even partially in such hands. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Checks and balances have not been raised yet. Currently, signatories must be extended-confirmed. What other criteria are you thinking of? CMD (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ideally, with the exception of the filer, those signing a petition should be uninvolved with respect to (recent) disputes with the subject administrator. The petition is intended to be a filter against filings that are frivolous, in bad faith, etc. This check should be done by those who are impartial. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::It's a tough ask but it makes sense from a rational perspective. --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It's difficult to determine for edge cases such as that: I assume that ideally, you'd want noninvolved editors with knowledge of the situation and the process/implications of recall petitions. But that's a very abstract thing to 'enforce', so the measure of Extended protected is used as a heuristic to equate edit count with understanding of the process DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{rfplinks|DeadbeefBot II}}

A bot has been given a trial period for the purpose of syncing Git repositories to Wikipedia, which necessitates giving it interface administrator privileges for the duration of the trial (30 days or 30 edits). Any feedback, comments, or concerns should be expressed at the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Primefac have you informed the operator that they must enroll that account in 2FA? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Xaosflux: I have now enrolled the bot account with 2FA. dbeef [talk] 15:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Dbeef, I did a double-take when I read this, I didn't know you changed your username recently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The new username does give the impression of a memory leak... Tarl N. (discuss) 04:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The old one is an actual debugging value: 0xDEADBEEF. – robertsky (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I always preferred 0xBAADF00D. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi Liz, yeah, unfortunately this is a consequence of trying to have a shorter and more memorable name.. dbeef [talk] 06:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Dbeef}} I heard that Clara Peller is looking for you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::: *Audibly groans.* Risker (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)