This page has archives. Sections older than7 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III.
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 usethis tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
TheBureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to theBureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Pleasestart 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, remaincivil, and remember toassume 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.
UtherSRG is AFAIK in any case allowed to run in the elections. The question is whether bureaucrats can decide if this is a standard "run for admin" or a RRFA (with the lower support threshold).Fram (talk)16:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-bureaucrat comment) Noting for anyone passing by that there is some discussion in the discussion section of the petition relevant to whether an extension to 35 days should be given in this case.Tazerdadog (talk)17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out Xaosflux. In reviewing theRfC it seems to indicate that we (the crats) could extend the time period from 30 days to 35 (the date of the call for candidates) to allow this to happen, though the wording on the actualWP:RECALL page does not give us that ability (only if the election had been in the 30 day window). I am of mixed feelings on the substance of the case, knowing my own frustration with crats seeming to ignore the community consensus about implementing desysop but also recognizing that the RfC does appear to gives us some small discretion for edge cases such as this. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)16:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-bureaucrat comment) The fact that both options that passed in that RfC section (A and E) explicitly grant bureaucrats discretion in implementation suggests to me that bureaucrats are permitted to make a minor extension to 35 days in this case if they so wish. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)17:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact wording at issue at WP:RECALL wasadded boldly byStifle in July. While I see his point that the 30-day limit should be mentioned, that edit should probably be reverted, with the limit instead mentioned below in "The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame", perhaps changing that to "The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within 30 days; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis." That seems consistent with the RfC's outcome. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about delaying a desysop to accommodate the timing of an admin election. To be clear, this isn’t directed against the candidate. The concept of admin elections was first raised in early 2024, while recall procedures weren’t formalized until later that year - and elections themselves weren’t implemented until earlier this year. That timeline gives me pause. It’s not clear that editors participating in the recall RfC could have anticipated or discussed how the two systems would interact.
The next election cycle opens on November 25, with results expected just before Christmas. If we treat that as a reason to postpone desysops, we may be stretching the community’s original consensus further than intended. I’m uncomfortable granting that much discretion through IAR without clearer guidance. It also raises a broader question - how far could that discretion extend before it becomes a precedent? “Within reason” sounds fine in theory, but what does that actually mean in practice? A standard RfA would likely conclude about 38 days after a recall opens; an election process would push that closer to 56.
I understand the view that a successful recall doesn’t necessarily signal a complete loss of faith, and that some flexibility could therefore be justified. But if we want that flexibility, it should be codified through a follow-up RfC, as voorts suggested in their close - not improvised through an IAR decision with long-term implications. The temporary desysop process isn’t a true separation; it’s a reversible state. Restoring the tools after the election is straightforward and doesn’t require bending existing consensus. --Amanda (she/her)11:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else has already noted this is not IAR - giving the 'crats discretion was explicitly authorised in the various RFCs and one of the reasons for this discussed was explicitly to allow a recalled admin to stand in an upcoming admin election that didn't quite fit the 30 day timing. If you think there needs to be an RFC to set explicit limits on the discretion then so be it, but it must be clear that it's tightening explicitly granted discretion not doing anything with regards IAR.Thryduulf (talk)12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about this for another day, I think I have come around to the position that we should allow Uther to run in the elections as a means of fulfilling to re-RfA requirement. Current community consensus (one I have started anRfC to see if it still holds) is that recalling an admin takes two steps. The first is a petition to ensure the complaint against the admin is not frivolous, the second is the re-RfA. The admin is given a reasonable amount of time to start the second stage. The community hasoverwhelmingly endorsed elections as a means to re-RfA and has also empowered us to usediscrestion in edge cases. The community knew that the election process would take longer than the traditional discussion format and their consensus suggests that this extra length of time is not a problem. We have an admin who has quite clearly expressed their intent to continue with the process in a way the community has endorsed and the community has said we should not view the 30 days as a strict barrier to allowing the process to play out. As such I think removing adminship before the results of the re-RfA, done through election, would be going against the consensus and wishes of the community. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)14:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admin elections only occur once or twice per year. Would you give the same latitude to an admin who is successfully petitioned three months away from an election cycle and who expresses the desire to take part in that process rather than using RfA? I assume not, because 3 months would not be seen as a reasonable amount of time. Therefore by entertaining this proposal we seem to building inconsistencies into the system. Either let all petitioned admins use the next admin election cycle (e.g. up to 6 months delay), or do not allow exceptions to anyone. — Martin(MSGJ · talk)16:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ, before I read this comment, Iagreed it would not be appropriate to wait 5 months (the length between admin elections). However, I read"immediately" comes with the common-sense caveat that the 'crats will ensure that the admin has been given an opportunity to request a delay as rejecting the hard line you're suggesting we use and for me an extension of 4/5 days falls with-in the common sense caveat the RfC close permits us. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is fair that petitioned admins can or cannot use the ADE process based just on the timing of their recall petition. Either we should let all use it or none. If 5 months is too long to wait (and I agree it is) then why not desysop after 30 days but allow them to use the next election as if they were still an admin? — Martin(MSGJ · talk)11:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not run an administrator election for just the arbitrary single administrator who is recalled at any time? Is the setup particularly onerous or is it otherwise a reasonable option?Izno (talk)21:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the setup is particularly onerous, due to the SecurePoll and the scrutineering. Whether that's "too onerous" is in the eye of the beholder, but it is definitely more complex than creating an RFA page.Useight (talk)21:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am specifically asking whether it istoo onerous and would prefer someone who has done that work to answer that question.Izno (talk)21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking about it from an IAR perspective. I was reading it from the RFC linked above, in which there was consensus for Option E, which states at the end: "then the maximum delay is 30 days, subject to 'crat discretion)". So, thirty days is the maximum, but that maximum isn't a hard cut-off, but rather it is subject to bureaucrat discretion. And we already know that AELECT is a suitable alternative to RFA after a recall, so we know there already is consensus for extending the process beyond the length of a standard RFA (since an ALECT takes longer). That being said, if others are reading it differently, I'm good with that, too.Useight (talk)16:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally fine with a short extension at the 'crats' discretion. I don't know which way I'm voting yet, so this is about as neutral a comment as you get right now. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...but I don't read the RFA close as saying you can, it looks pretty explicitly like "you can delay for thirty days, but you can force them to run now if you have a really good reason". I prefer allowing a short extension, as above.SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the thread atWikipedia:Administrator recall/UtherSRG#Discussion I think it would be reasonable to give UtherSRG an extra few days to run in the upcoming election. The alternative would be to desysop him in 30 days and then potentially resysop him after the election. I might think differently if the admin were using the tools more frequently, or if the discussion on their petition page had gone differently with signers insistent that they step down ASAP.ϢereSpielChequers18:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that whether Uther is running as a fresh candidate or a re-RFA does matter for the support % required to either stay sysop or be (re)granted it. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)19:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defeating a recall requires only 55% support in the election, whereas the normal election promotion threshold is 70%. Did I miss a change? —xaosfluxTalk13:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a recall-spawned AELECT, it does require 55% support to retain the bit. It's a hard cut-off. In a regular RRFA, it requires a 60% support to automatically retain the bit, but a 50-60% support in an RRFA can go to a 'crat chat. A normal AELECT requires 70% (and at least 20 voters) and it's a hard cut-off. A normal RFA has the 75% "auto-pass" and the 65-75% 'crat chat range. So, in both cases, AELECT has a lower auto-pass, but the (R)RFA has the possibility of passing with a lower percentage.Useight (talk)13:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No that is my point. If we consider this a re-RFA he would need 55%. If we consider this a fresh RfA he would need 70%. We, as crats, should be clear about which % we are applying in this case. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)18:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For fairness to all parties, you (collectively) need to be explicit about which threshold you are applying before voting starts (ideally before the deadline to submit nomination statements).Thryduulf (talk)18:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of corner I was afraid of us getting backed into (though I didn't explicitly think about it). It's why I was feeling above that there was not enough original discussion around things. I agree with Vanamonde below about how the timing brings inequity into the mix. While it's not IAR itself, this still has IAR-esque (for lack of better term) concerns about the implementation of community policy, and then will start a precedent that can only then be turned over by community RfC. --Amanda (she/her)23:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's an important point, and probably best hashed out now while Uther still has the chance of running an RFA. I'm inclined to give him a few extra days to run in the election as a re-RFA at the re-RFA threshold, if anyone has strong objections it would be good to know that now while he could still submit an RFA.ϢereSpielChequers13:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others point out above, the timing of this recall petition is such that 'crat discretion comes into play with respect to allowing UtherSG options; but that timing is coincidental, and a system that allows different options to keep admin status based on the wholly arbitrary timing of a recall petition isn't very equitable. The community clearly wanted to give admins the chance to retain adminship via elections. So I wonder if the way through this is to allow for temporary desysops at the request of an admin who wishes to in the next election, that would be made permanent or reversed depending on the result of that election. We'd need a wider discussion for this, of course.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution would be desysop when they announce the intent to participate in the next election, if it's more than 30 days away, then grade the election based on the lower re-RFA cutoff. (t ·c)buidhe23:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the ongoing RFC we can discuss whether, going forward, an admin election is an appropriate way for an admin to retain the bit given the infrequency of elections. While the call for candidates may have been "only five" days past the 30-day limit in this case, the start of voting is 49 days after the petition closed and ends 55 days after the petition closed (and god knows how long it would take for results to come in). ~~Jessintime (talk)00:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate here, but I'd have thought that the relevant date for the next election would be the voting phase, which starts on December 9. That's seventeen - not just five - days after the nominal deadline. —Cryptic01:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that realistically UtherSRG has the option of starting a RRFA within 30 days, or (with Crat discretion) a AELECT within 35 days. The pass rate for the RRFA is potentially 50%, definitely 60%; for the AELECT it is definitely 55%. This seems fairly balanced, given that it is likely that a RRFA which finishes at 55% or above may pass a Crat chat, while one which finished below 55% may not; and it is up to UtherSRG as to which carries greater benefit. However, as indicated above, the AELECT voting period starts at least 19 days later than the latest voting period of a RRFA if UtherSRG waited until the final day of the allowed 30 days. The community have allowed the Crats some discretion in the 30 days allowed for an admin to start the reconfirmation voting. I'm not convinced that the community anticipated a 19 day delay would be reasonable. There are certain strategic advantages to delaying a reconfirmation, which is one of the reasons why the community have no doubt felt it appropriate for the matter to be settled in a reasonably prompt time scale. Allowing an admin to select a 55% cut off, or a 50-60% discretionary range seems appropriate. Allowing an admin to delay the voting by at least an extra 19 days does not seem reasonable to me - that's more than 50% extra of the 30 days they are allowed. I'd like to see a formal Crat chat on this issue: "Should UtherSRG be permitted to delay voting in their reconfirmation by at least 19 days?"SilkTork (talk)18:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like it's the question that matters as much as the answer: is it launching the AELECT nomination that stops the clock, or starting the voting?theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Your comment[reply]
We time RRFAs based on the start of the process (30 days to start it, not that you have to wrap it up in 30). I think the best analogy is that you have to start the RRFA prrocess in 30, not get to a midpoint, so I think the request would be best characterized as a 5 day extension, not a 19 day one.Tazerdadog (talk)19:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that you can get not too far from this level of delay with RRfA too. If you figure someone can probably get a one-week extension for a good reason, you can have someone starting RRfA on day 37, have voting end on day 43, and then if a 'crat chat lasts as long as the modern record (Moneytrees in 2020), only reaching a final disposition on day 48. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)19:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not counting the time to final decision, I'm counting the time to the start of the voting. The further away we are from an incident the more forgiving we are, so it is to the advantage to delay the voting if you want a favourable result. If there is an acceptable reason for delay, such as an illness, then so be it. But I don't think it is appropriate to have a strategic delay, and I don't see that the Crats have really been given community consent to allow such a delay. However, it is up to the Crats to talk that one over. And I do think that it should be explicitly talked over. In the discussion so far, what I have seen so far is a consideration if there is community consensus for the Crats to delay more than 30 days, and yes there is. There's been discussion on pass level, though it appears that community consensus is clear on that - 55%. Then I have seen some members of the community raise the issue of the specific length of the delay, but I have not seen the Crats bring that issue out into the open and discuss it. This is a new area, and the implications of the process is still a little opaque. What is clear is that the Crats have some discretion over extending the 30 days, and the discussion above mostly focuses on an extra 5 days. That 5 days takes us to the start of a process, but the voting aspect doesn't happen for 19 days. That has been raised above, but has not yet been explicitly discussed and voted on by the Crats. The community says 30 days with the Crats having some discretion over the exact time (which is fair because sometimes, as with illness or holidays or work, there may be delays to take into account). The community says that an admin may have the vote via AELECT, and in that case the pass level would be 55%, which is fair and appropriate. What the Crats need to decide is if the community have given them authority to extend the delay in voting by 19 days just to use AELECT instead of RRFA (I think that's nearly 2/3rds (63%) extra time). I personally don't see that the community has given consent for that much extra time for a purely strategic reason (not illness, etc). But it is up to the Crats to decide that, given that we are in uncharted waters.SilkTork (talk)02:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should make clear that I'm not suggesting that UtherSRG is doing this for cynical reasons, such as to deliberately put distance between the recall petition and the vote; I suspect they would prefer AELECT as it a less personal and so less stressful experience. However, there is a potential positive consequence of a delay, which could be strategically exploited in future. A decision now sets a precedent for the future.SilkTork (talk)10:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amanda; these are two very new processes and some bugs only get discovered further down the line after we're already in production. This is likely the only time we area going to have this issue, because there will undoubtedly be a clarification discussion or RFC about amending the process to explicitly state how this sort of dual-timeline overlap should be dealt with (which at the very least willhopefully give us a bit more of a guideline to follow than just "use your discretion"). Let's not get too bogged down inthis discussion (which is about a specific candidate) about other circumstances. This is not necessarily the time to discuss hypotheticals at the risk of being derailed.My personal opinion? Uther's recall falls only slightly short of the AELECT process, and I see no issue extending the no-so-hard 30-day cutoff by a bit to let them both participate in the processand keep the mop in the meantime; while not the end of the world, it seems a bit silly to desysop for 2-3 weeks on the off chance the election doesn't go their way.Primefac (talk)11:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I readmy close as finding that the community wanted the 'crats to have discretion to extend the 30-day period. In particular, the close noted:The argument that a recall petition does not equate to a complete loss of faith in the community was stronger than the argument of a need to protect from abuse. That said, there seemed to be an assumption that admins would understand that their actions between a successful petition and a a re-RfA would be under scrutiny and that they likely wouldn't abuse their tools. In my view, the 'crats have discretion whether to grant an extension or not, and that discretion should account for the circumstances/allegations of the petition, post-petition conduct, and the reasonableness of the delay.voorts (talk/contributions)20:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The United States Department of Defense is now officially the United States Department of War (again). The government website, now athttp://www.war.gov is called '''Department of War." This is going to irritate a number of people, but distaste for the current President of the United States can't affect the accuracy of Wikipedia. I hope my Fellow 'crats will defend this position.Cecropia (talk)21:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use any Bureaucrat rights in making the edits. I posted factual information that shouldn't have to pass a Board of Review. And I gave a valid source. You know we have prominent people breathing down our Wikinecks because of the it's perceived leftist bias.Cecropia (talk)21:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my original comment knowing full well that it is not only Bureaucrats, or even admins, that watch this page, so I could assert upfront what I started and get the kind of feedback that's already started.Cecropia (talk)23:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm the new crat on the block here, but I don't think that discussion (or this) really falls in the scope ofIt is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. as this was an action you made as an editor not related to any crat powers or buttons. Posting it here felt like a weird sort ofcanvassing which this most recent message also seems to confirm. I have to agree with SFR's closing statement and returning to the discussion risks making it a crat discussion in all the wrong ways. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)23:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling by an OG is still trolling. Someone might want to block Crecropia from posting to this page for an evening; this might be solved with a little time out.Floquenbeam (talk)23:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The normal way to ask people from a noticeboard to join a discussion such as anWP:RM is to add a{{Please see}} template, which delivers a neutral invitation to join the discussion.I hope my Fellow 'crats will defend this position doesn't seem particularlyneutral to me. –Novem Linguae(talk)01:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This could not more clearly be canvassing about an issue with the intention of utilizing the soft power of being a crat, while OBVIOUSLY not being a crat issue or belonging at this board. Come on @Cecropia, as a crat you should know better. The fact you're doubling down makes me wish there was a crat recall process. Do better.Hey man im josh (talk)02:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna be a bit adverserial and say that I honestly don't see the point of crats anymore for the most part outside of assigning bot and admin flags and the once a blue moon crat chat. (all of which could imo be handled by admins themselves except adding the admin flag, which can be for all intents and purposes be handled by stews the way it is currently going). A fair bit of our current crop of crats are mostly from a previous-forgotten time (besides maybe Xaos, WSC, AmandaNP, Barkeep49, Primefac, Xeno, and Lee Vilenski) and I honestly don't have confidence that their collective opinions reflect current consensus/practices on-wiki.Sohom (talk)02:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: UtherSRG hasindicated they wish to run in thenext admin election. —xaosfluxTalk14:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]