Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2018#September 2018

• {{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)

: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)

:{{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)