Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Procedural note

{{rfplinks|L235}}

I'd like to request intadmin to assist with JS/CSS/MediaWiki namespace maintenance. I have 2FA (and a strong password) enabled on my account, and am aware of the privacy expectations on the Wikimedia projects and a sufficient understanding of JavaScript to notice and catch e.g. potential XSS issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{on hold}} Standard 48-hour hold for 1st time requesters. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since I have a friendship with Kevin, I'd be the wrong person to press the buttons on this as a crat, but do want to express my support and trust in him as an editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Another easy one; support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's good to see Kevin back. :) Mz7 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{+1}} --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

:(none)

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. {{admin|NuclearWarfare}}
2. : Last logged admin action: Dec 2021

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: Btw, why is the reason "procedural removal dur to inactivity per Special:Permalink/1293310648#Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2023#November_2023 at WP:BN"? —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 06:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I believe it was a mistake. Xaosflux accidentally copied the wrong link. – DreamRimmer ■ 07:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::: OK, cf. discussion last month. —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was watching for that too - going to purge my autocomplete buffer now, I'll fix that entry. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Purged that buffer, thank you for the note, apologies for any confusion. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: 👍 —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{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)

: {{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)

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)