Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 7 November 2024 (→Resysop request (Ajpolino): done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
    You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
    Shortcuts

    The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

    This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

    If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

    To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 0
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 14
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 10:01:28 on December 4, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Role of bureaucrats in administrator recall process

    Note that the Wikipedia:Administrator recall process that was developed as part of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has given the bureaucrats a new task. Once a recall petition has gained enough support to pass, the administrator in question must make a re-request for adminship or stand in an administrator election within 30 days. The bureaucrats are responsible to ensure that this is done in a reasonable time frame. If neither take place, then bureaucrats can remove administrative privileges at their discretion. Thus there is flexibility for judgement regarding what time frame is reasonable. Note the phase 2 consensus was reconciled in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall § Initiating RRFAs (comment thread permalink) to work out this task. Your support of this process will be greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also an ongoing discussion about whether there is any flexibility with the 30 days here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#Outstanding questions. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At WP:AN § Is WP:RECALL a policy? (see most recent posts at the bottom), some editors have asked whether bureaucrats are actually authorized to desysop based on this process. Is it possible to get an "official" answer from the 'crats? Levivich (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably, but I'd like to see a little bit more added regarding such at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall, where referencing the rfc would be nice. Also in the newer addition If an administrator abuses administrative rights, the community can require a re-request for adminship (RRfA) section -- did the empowering RFC require an actual showing of "abuse" of "administrative rights" - or could a recall be initiated for any reason? I think it is likely the later (such that showing consensus of "abuse" is not a necessary element.) I think the updates to the admin policy should specifically state that this type of involuntary removal may be performed by bureaucrats. Arguments of if the policy change is supported or not should continue in the appropriate venues as needed (i.e. not this page). — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't the original RFC proposal 16C specifically note that it will be the bureaucrats removing the admin flag during this process? The alternatives, I suppose, would be that a steward remove it, which seems atypical, or nobody removes it, which means the recall process has no teeth. I would doubt that the RFC participants had either of those outcomes in mind, and so it would fall to the bureaucrats to perform that actual bit removal. Useight (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Useight, I don't think "who" should do the bit-flipping is being debated, if it is appropriate to be done, it should be done by us. — xaosflux Talk 10:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I don't think there's any question of if it would be us who would handle any removal of the bit. We would handle any removal of adminship if suitable.
    I think the issue is the details of when a removal of admin privileges should be inforced. I agree that the process shouldn't be limited to "abuse of administrative rights", there's many reasons why one might get consensus for someone to have their rights removed.
    Most of our job is to evaluate consensus, so we should handle a recall process now it is policy. I would for one, want the policy to specifically state what the correct format should be - should it be a case of an uninvolved user coming to BN and asking for the bit to be removed? Should crats be checking and closing the proposals themselves (if that's already been discussed, I missed it, sorry). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual "recall election" is effected either by a reconfirmation RfA, which presumably must be closed by a crat, or through admin elections, if those stay, where it will presumably be handled along with the rest of the election results. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'd like to see is the 2 new involuntary removal conditions be clearly listed in the admin policy: (a) being unsuccessful in a recall election; (b) refusing to start a recall election. Linking to the rfc that established the consensus for that policy update would be useful as well assuming debate about that rfc closure and its affect is over. — xaosflux Talk 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, xaos, Usesight, and Lee for the feedback. I've made edits to WP:ADMIN to clear up the "abuse" issue, link to the RFCs, and explicitly specify the 2 removal criteria (failure to start, failure to pass). Hope that helps. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Levivich. I made a slight grammatical change to your addition (changing "does not timely start" to "does not promptly start"), but I would like it even better if it specified just how long the user had. Either way, I liked that the wording allowed for any reason of not starting the RRFA, not just refusing to do so - as an admin who ignored the whole thing would be failing to start one but not refusing to start one, per se. Useight (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I just changed it again to specify "30 days" (per the RFCs). Levivich (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm so glad there's a discussion of recall here, the other twenty discusions spread scross half of project space really were not enough. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the one 'crat who has weighed in here thus far is opposed to mass-pinging, so I'm not sure what else one would do to get 'crat input. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind the question of "hey crat's are you willing to do this, if not what do you need"? being here - but yes, please don't fork the rest of the discussion here. My colleagues may certainly have their own takes on the current status as 'crats, or as community members. — xaosflux Talk 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop request (Daniel)

    Please remove my administrator tools for now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm super bummed to see this @Daniel, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for everything. You've been an amazing administrator who was always someone to look to as an excellent example of how to be, and I really do hope you pick the tools back up some day. If you don't, that's fine, I understand, but you've had an awesome impact on the site in a positive way. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, let us know if you need any advanced perms. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other admins are going to have to step up their game. Daniel, thanks for the hard work and I hope you're sticking around as a mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words Floq and Josh. I will still be active for sure, albeit at a lower level (I have 7 weeks away from home in the next 13 and it's summer here, so the 6 weeks I am here I'll probably be at the beach!) - I might even still close some AfD's once in a while :) I also look forward to picking up the tools at some point — likely next year — although I'll be keeping an eye on certain developments that are important to me when making that decision. Cheers all, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just adding my voice to the chorus here. Admins with a clear sense of right and wrong are a valued commodity. Enjoy the break. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Daniel. We appreciate your dedication to the project. Stepping back is almost always a GOOD thing. Sing out if you need more sunscreen; we're well networked for international response. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactive admins for November 2024

    The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

    Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
    1. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: October 2023
    2. JaGa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: February 2016
    3. Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: March 2023
    Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
    1. Christopher Sundita (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: December 2022
    2. Kbh3rd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: April 2015
    3. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last logged admin action: December 2021
    Thank you all for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Xaosflux why does JaGa's eight years of no admin actions matter? He's not edited for over a year, so indeed he qualifies for desysopping; I just don't understand why you mention the admin actions. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Xaosflux, but I assume it's to note whether these admins would qualify for resysopping if they were to return to activity. Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools states not to resysop if it has been more than five years since the last logged action, so in JaGa's case he would need to go through another RFA. –FlyingAce✈hello 05:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should a resysop request come in, this is a handy note to help in the checks for restoration - if it has been a long time some eligibilities may have passed or additional discussion may be warranted. — xaosflux Talk 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of enwiki Admin rights (Dragons flight)

    I haven't really been active for a long time now, and will hit the admin inactivity threshold soon anyway, so I might as well make the desysop request myself. It's been fun, but for now other interests and priorities have gotten the better of me. Not sure if I'll ever really return to active editing or not. Maybe some day if life slows down, but I'm still proud of what I've contributed to Wikipedia over the years, and glad to see the project continue to flourish. Good luck to everyone else. Dragons flight (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Please let us know if you need any of the advanced perms you held before adminship. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ever become active again, rollback and template editor would probably be useful. At the moment though, I'm not doing much of anything, so I'm also happy to sort that out at a later date. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work over the years. I wish we had an "admin reserve" where trusted accounts could be pulled out of mothballs and reactivated if needed. I guess this is a tiny bit like that. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting off-topic here, but the reason for the admin activity requirements is because there is a large community opposition to admins coming out of the mothballs who are unfamiliar with contemporary policy and community norms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in general the community is probably better off finding more ways to place trust in current active users than expecting inactive users to jump back in. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin election results - please enact

    Hi! The results of the 2024 admin elections have been finalized, scrutinized, and posted here. The following candidates surpassed the threshold and should be promoted to admin status:

    A bureaucrat can now enact the promotions - thank you very much! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. Everything is final and ready for bureaucrats to promote. WMF Trust & Safety made the initial post with the decrypted mw:Extension:SecurePoll results, and the 3 steward scrutineers signed the results page to ratify it. Here's a link to the page history if you'd like to double check yourselves. I've also double checked the names list Ganesh811 posted above and it has been correctly copied over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, but please next time use {{rfplinks}} so I don't have to make six clicks to get to their userrights. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, will do! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you immediately de-sysop any candidate who has a massive pic of their boat race on their user page  :) SerialNumber54129 01:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that must be some sort of record for new admins in month for quite sometime. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since August 2010! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interface admin perm request (Sohom Datta)

    Sohom Datta (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) Hi folks, I'd like to request access to interface administrator permissions to work on gadgets and the MediaWiki: namespace (as I mentioned in Q1 of my WP:AELECT statement) -- Sohom (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasting no time! Just a quick comment to say that I know Sohom to be a highly technically proficient editor who will be careful with this right — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I'd also like to point out they're currently a global int admin already until April, 2025. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard 48 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. History of gadget work such as {{IAER}}s to Mediawiki:Gadget-popups.js. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IAdmin request (SD0001)

    SD0001 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Hi, I am requesting intadmin rights as I've been active in raising IPERs and would now love to help out with requests from others. I have quite a few edits in MediaWiki namepace before becoming an admin . – SD0001 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely expected. To use TNT's words on another request, I know Sohom SD0001 to be a highly technically proficient editor who will be careful with this right. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Extensive history of gadget work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard 48 hour hold is in effect. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Fathoms Below)

    Fathoms Below (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) Hi 'crats, I'd like to resysop. It's been a tough year, and I resigned a few months ago because of burnout that morphed into depression. I said on my talk that I didn't plan on requesting adminship for a while since I had concerns about my mental health and temperament, but since then I think I've made some progress on both fronts. I'll probably stick to AIV and UAA for now and build back into other areas like PERM later. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop request is at Special:Permalink/1229769776, note the username change. Standard 24 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last admin actions were in June 2024 (4 days before the desysop request) so well within the timeframe for restoration here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works out either way here, but for the record, most recent admin activity only matters on an inactivity desysop. For a few years, WP:ADMIN incorrectly implied otherwise, but Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 23 § Clarifying 5 year rule resolved this in 2022. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the 2022 discussion clarified the position regarding when we start counting the 5 years from but didn't address it only applying to desysops due to inactivity. I'll start a new discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions for anyone interested. The discussion is not relevant to Fathoms Below's request. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Ajpolino)

    Hi all. My interest in article writing is waning for now. I think returning to copyright problems for a bit will get my head on straight again. The tools would help with that. Desysop request here, around a year ago. Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard 24 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 6 logged admin actions since February 2022:
    Well yes, unsurprisingly, that's why I requested desysop in the first place. Do you have a question or concern? Ajpolino (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's for checking WP:RESYSOP requirements. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's a simple factual note so that the decision to resysop or not resysop is made based on the relevant evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting closure of Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87

    As currently stated in WP:RECALL, Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 currently meets the threshold for an RRFA (re-request for adminship) - 25 EC editors signing the petition within 30 days. As the bureaucrats are currently listed as responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion, it might be good for a crat to step in and discuss how to proceed from here.

    Is a formal closure of the recall petition needed? It might be beneficial anyways. Also may be helpful to have an informal discussion on how the RRFA begins. Soni (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not at all sure that a 'crat is required to close the petition, although I'm sure some would rest easier if one did. . Also their opnion is no more relevant than yours or mine. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed it here less as a "Crats need to do this" and more "The policy page lists crat involvement in the next steps - How will that work now on". With a new process like this, there'll be informal "How we do this" for things not explicitly listed in the page.
    Especially given Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall/Graham87#What_happens_now? is causing some doubt on if closing itself is valid. I'd argue closure is the most logical read of this. Else we may need another discussion to fix that loophole. Soni (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is best if a crat formally notes that the threshold has been crossed and then discusses the next steps with the admin in question (in particular, when to start the RRFA if the admin does not resign under a cloud). Leaving this to the bureaucrats should help slightly reduce the drama level. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) A formal closure definitely is not required as there is no mention of anything like that in the policy. I'm not sure what a crat closure would bring? Anyone can verify that 25 (or more) extended confirmed editors have signed within 30 days, and that's the only thing that is relevant.
    Regarding how the RRFA begins, assuming Graham87 doesn't want to resign his adminship status then it begins the same way every other RFA does: Graham will prepare his nomination statement, etc and then when he is ready he will transclude it at WP:RFA. Crat involvement is only needed when the RRFA closes or if Graham87 doesn't initiate it within 30 days. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy does not prohibit a formal closure; its absence from the policy seems like an oversight (which is to be expected; Wikipedians are terrible at prescriptive policy writing). —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed one is not prohibited, but I'm not sure what the benefit of one would be? Not everything needs a closure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I understand you correctly, unless Graham starts his new RFA early, there is no step that will be taken between now and 26 November when the recall petition expires? And assuming we get to that date and the 25+ signatures are in place, the policy is not at all clear on what exactly happens after that. The wording says "the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election", but without any time frame or procedure for how that might happen (indeed, if Graham were to plump for the admin-election option we'd be in complete limbo as there aren't any further elections scheduled any time soon).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Graham starts his new RFA early, there is no step that will be taken between now and 26 November when the recall petition expires? Yes.
    but without any time frame or procedure for how that might happen... No. The Re-request for adminship section says An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an administrator election is scheduled within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead. so as long as Graham initiates his re-RFA within 30 days of 26 November (plus any leeway the crats deem reasonable, which might be none) all is good from the perspective of recall.
    In theory, if a RRFA is both initiated and closed or withdrawn before 26 November, then Graham could be required to hold a second re-RFA, but that would be extremely bureaucratic, especially as the only way he will be an adminstrator at that point is if the RRFA is snow-closed as successful and I don't recall any RFA ever being closed that way (nothing in the policy can compel someone who has chosen to resign their adminship to stand again). Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Although I guess they could attempt to regain adminship via the lower support threshold of a RRFA than a standard RFA, but I don't think the community would support someone attempting to game the system in that way). Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, sorry, I didn't see the additional stipulations further down the page... it might be handy to clarify that in the sentence I've quoted above, since taken in isolation that appears to say that an admin election is always an option. Anyway, it looks like there's not much more to be done here. We wait until the 26 November for the recall to close, and after that we wait again until the 26 December for the RRFA to be started. Quite a long time-frame during which the admin under a cloud can retain the bit, but it appears those are the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The petition can only result in re-RFA, so the moment Graham chooses to Re-RFA (or commits to a date for it), the petition itself can be closed (which I believe is @Newyorkbrad:'s read too). So I think it'll be extreme bureaucracy to try to force a second RRFA after that.
    As it is, WP:RECALL has this provision to ward against similar cases - The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or re-request for adminship, or within twelve months of the administrator being elected an administrator or elected to the Arbitration Committee. Soni (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefits of a formal closure would be:
    1. Avoiding a pile-on - we have reached the threshold so no new signatures are required now.
    2. If people who are supporting the petition later change their mind, then it may become confusing about whether the recall petition was successful or not
    — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. From what Thryduulf has indicated, and indeed the way the policy is written, I don't think closing now is an option. If some of the signatories withdraw their name in the mean time and it dips back under 25, then I think the recall is closed as unsuccessful.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing a RRFA to run the full length and see how many people sign the petition could contribute to the decision about whether to run at RfA or just give up the tools. If one closed at ~30 signatures, someone may think they have a good shot and run. If it closed at ~70, an admin might simply give up the tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have guessed that it needed an RFC-style close where the discussion is thoroughly read and summarized. I would have thought any editor could hat it with a one-sentence explanation that 25 signatures were achieved and that it's proceeding to the next step in WP:RECALL. A quick close would also have the added benefit of ending the drama for awhile, until the new RFA is launched. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the best analysis is that the petition would ordinarily remain open for the full 30 days (primarily to allow signers to withdraw their signatures if they change their minds), but that if the admin acknowledges that the petition has succeeded and is willing for the 30-day RRfA clock to start immediately, then the admin should be allowed to waive the extra time and the petition could be closed at that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; the current wording implies that the discussion lasts for 30 days, full stop, and a re-RFA has to happen within 30 days of the discussion closing. If they file earlier, that's their choice. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm also making a slightly different point: if the admin says "okay, fine, I'm recalled, I'm filing my RRfA tomorrow," then can the petition then be closed today rather than tomorrow? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The language of the page as it currently reads does not give the option/procedure to close a petition early, which is something that probably should be rectified. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there are any circumstances under which anyone could reasonably object to a crat closing the petition once the RRFA has actually started. It should definitely be clarified though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this process is a threshold petition and doesn't utilize consensus, it would seem to me at the moment the 25th signature is applied, the threshold is met, the petition is successful, and options pass to the object of the petition immediately. If a few extra sigs come in, that's fine but has no impact on the already met threshold. BusterD (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Bureaucrat note: I have informed Graham of the status of the petition as the first step of ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not specified that the petition should be closed after 25 signatures, then it shouldn't be closed. The only reason to close would be due to the starting of an RRfA, as this would replace the petition discussion. For now there remains a benefit to having discussion open, prior to the re-request, even if the petition could be archived and discussion taken to the talk page for example. CNC (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree here, no reason it "needs" to be closed, and certainly not only by a 'crat - but as it is a simple numerical-count-threshold petition keeping it open isn't necessary for anything so I think anyone should feel free to mark it closed at this point. If they want to discuss the petition itself there is its talk page. — xaosflux Talk 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this read, I am making a perhaps WP:Bold closure of the petition myself.
    As a sidenote, rules as intended I don't believe anyone ever planned for it to be 30 days even if threshold was met. The phrasing just existed as a quirk of the policy word choice, not the original RFCs. Soni (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much believe that was the wrong action to take. As mentioned above, someone may reasonably leave a petition open to see just how many signatures it racks up to get a better idea of how many opposes they may get, and whether it's worth it to just give up the tools or not. The better choice was to either let it run its course or for the person being petitioned to give the okay for it to be closed, not for those who are not being petitioned to decide to close it just because the threshold has been reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? I'm going to boldly re-open it. Per Primefac's note on Graeme87's page, ...at current the language does not require a firm statement until the poll has "closed". To close the petition now is to start the timer earlier than a person may be ready for and is blindsiding them in a sense. I don't believe that's appropriate. We need to either work the language out in a way that makes more sense, or allow the candidate to ask for or accept the petition be closed. There's no consensus on whether a close is appropriate at this time, so let's not force it through. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you're wrong.
    For one, I personally disagree with "racking up" signatures as an explicit strategy being open, that sounds like the kind of thing to be kept for RRFA itself (same as Oppose-recall petition votes). I personally do not believe in any tangible benefit to applying additional pressure to admins who have already accepted the outcome of the process. If they want to give up the tools, they can still choose to do so.
    For the factual point of view, I already expressed what the wording choice in RFCs was conveying, and why the current policy as written was just phrased slightly different. It had been intended to be "When the threshold is met" not "Run it for N days, even if it's succeeded".
    And finally, I read Graham87's comments here as asking for the proposal to be closed/checking if it can be. But if you want to be ultra explicit, we can ping @Graham87: here to check.
    In either case, I believe the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Early_closure should be able to resolve this explicitly for the future Soni (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soni: Respectfully, it's a big decision whether to run at RfA or not. It sucks whether you rack up tons of supports or whether it's going to be a difficult dredge. If people believe the process should go the full 30 days, and the candidate wants to see how opposed they may be based on the number of signatories, I believe they should be allowed to. It's fine that we both disagree, but with the ambiguity I don't think it's fair to anybody to close it without figuring things out first and force the clock to start ticking. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've self reverted my own close, based on the comment that I had not initially seen. Sorry for the trouble folks, I just felt very strongly that someone shouldn't have the discussion closed unexpected, but it appears as though they did actually want this. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie dokie. Please join or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall regarding how to improve that process to remove ambiguity in the future. — xaosflux Talk 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm with Soni here - Graham87 is not being blindsided by anything, and has made his intentions clear that he's going to RRFA within less than a month from any reasonable interpretation of the timeline. There's nothing to be gained from keeping it open. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that it may have been incorrect to reopen it @Pppery, I just don't believe that someone "boldly" closing it is the correct thing to do in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If bold is the part of this closure you have problems with, I'll happily just let my rest of reasoning speak for itself. I actually got EC-ed on the close itself by SN-54129.
    And I'm not sure if you missed it, but the candidate themselves said I'll go for the RRFA as soon as possible and was just about to scout for noms.. Soni (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did @Soni, and I've already self-reverted. I see now how and why I made the mistake. I was a bit fired up at the idea of someone boldly closing the discussion and forcing someone into the process sooner than they may have been prepared for, and there's been so much discussion, that I missed the relevant comment that showed it's not quite as bold as I initially thought. I checked Graham87's talk page, I checked the talk page here, but the place I did not check was the talk page of the petition itself. This is suuuuper trout worthy on my part. Again, I apologize to all involved, but I believe I had the best of intentions in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=1255940614"