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.
It is04:08:15 onNovember 27, 2025, according to the server's time and date.
Certified recall petition
It has been suggested that when an administrator recall petition is certified with 25 signatures, the bureaucrats be notified here. This is for their information and not because any specific action is required at that time. Accordingly, please note thatWikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr was closed with 25 signatures on July 21. I am posting this, not because I supported the petition (I did not), but because I am surprised that no one else has mentioned it here after three days. Pinging@Night Gyr: as a courtesy. Regards,Newyorkbrad (talk)15:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, despite personally disagreeing with the...bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame... directive, so long as that is an expectation - then yes this would be a place to send notifications. —xaosfluxTalk14:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This step can probably be handled informally, as I have done above. I expect that recall petitions will be uncommon enough that they don't need to be surrounded by too much, um, bureaucracy. Regards,Newyorkbrad (talk)15:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with NYB. Speaking to the broader point xaosflux is raising, ultimately the crats remain volunteers so I don't think any crat has to do something with a particular RRfA. But at least for me, a reason I wanted to serve as a crat was to help with the things the community is asking the crats to do and so I do feel some responsibility to do what is asked, regardless of my feelings about what is working or not with the current recall process. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)18:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind enforcing the decisions at all, a task only crats can do. I do think that as anyone from the community (and in this case perhaps good candidates would be the petition initiator or a signatory) can watch a clock, they don't need to escalate that responsibility. A similarity would be inactive admins - Of course 'crats are in charge of processing the removals when it is time to do so, but we don't personally have to do all the clock-watching steps. (We may of course, as any editor may). —xaosfluxTalk19:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a notification of a certified recall petition here at BN would only be necessary if for some reason bureaucrats have not actioned the certified petition after the 30-day mark in a timely manner. Looking at the prior examples of these kinds of notifications, I see some evidence that these notifications might provoke people into relitigating the closed recall where theWP:STICK approach would better serve the community.Mz7 (talk)02:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popping in here as a disinterested party (I've only !voted in one recall that I canrecall [no pun intended], never closed any). Would it resolve your concerns over relitigating if the notification was posted, but that no reply from non-bureaucrats was allowed to the notification? I appreciate what NYB is saying that informal is potentially possible... but then the question becomes if the crats are never notified of the recall petition being certified, they may have it randomly thrust upon them 30 days later being expected to just remove the bit immediately. Even if the crat(s) have valid concerns over the petition.In other words, while the policy doesn't explicitly say it, we expect the bureaucrats to at least do a cursory review of the recall to ensure policy was followed before they action it. I don't think it's fair to them to have that cursory review only occur after the 30 day time period has passed. Notifying them early - with zero discussion/reply from non-crats - allows them to review and if necessary discuss amongst themselves it over that 30 day period so that the bit flip can occur at the 30 day mark and doesn't need to wait for discussion amongst crats. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!02:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I just can't think of any realistic procedural issues that a bureaucrat might find with a certified petition. The criteria for certification don't seem to leave much room for ambiguity. If there is anything we have learned about the recall process so far, it is that the recall petitions tend to be highly visible, so even in the unlikely event that a petition is not certified correctly, I would expect the community to resolve that matter quickly without needing a bureaucrat at BN to point it out.Mz7 (talk)03:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plausible but low likelihood scenarios of problems developing/being discovered between the petition being certified and the 30 days passing. One example would be one or more of the signers being discovered to be a sock of another signer. In situations like that I'd expect a 'crat to ask the community what they want to do (assuming the admin in question hasn't already initiated a reRFA in the meanwhile) and not to action anything (without penalty to the admin) until it looked like there was consensus (what to do if it is clear there isn't going to be a consensus I'll leave to those earning the bigger bucks than me).Thryduulf (talk)03:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 This is the type of situation I was thinking of. I see the crats' role in recall petitions similar to their role in an RfA - basically confirming that there wasn't any malfeasance at foot by any of the individuals who signed the petition - assuming the RfA was well within consensus to promote to begin with. And I would go even further - if there wasany meaningful malfeasance in a recall petition, then the crats should almost always refuse to accept the recall petition and require it to either be reran (with the community aware of and on the lookout for that malfeasance if it were to happen again), or ignore that one petition. In the rare case that the crats may decide to still accept the recall petition anyways, that's what we trust them to do. But they should have ample notice so they have time to review it, rather than having it shoved on them at the 30 day mark saying "hey, this petition passed a month ago, do your thing crats". While I know I've made some comments that may suggest I'm all for stripping the bit from people, it's only fair to admins that they don't have the bit stripped based on a recall petition that did notcompletely meet policy - either because of sock voter(s), or because of some other issue the crats find with it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!07:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno @Mz7. There hasn't really been any discussion here about NightGyr despite that being a rather contentious petition process. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)18:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like the idea of a designated group responsible for learning the admin's intentions regarding next steps, rather than having users who have lost trust in the admin take the lead. But I am sympathetic to the idea that this could be done by experienced community members. Thus I'm persuaded that notifying bureaucrats of a passing petition isn't time-critical and so can be dealt with informally. So far we haven't an issue with having to follow up with the admin in question regarding their intentions (what happens with the most recent petition remains to be seen). If there are issues with how followups are conducted in practice, then the need for more detailed procedures can be re-evaluated.isaacl (talk)04:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If such a group is formed, then this can be revisited. But as of right now, there is no such group, so we have to rely on crats to give at least a cursory review of the recall petition to confirm everything is in order and nothing malicious is at foot, before they flip the bit. Informally is fine, so long as informally happens relatively soon after the "passing" of the petition - that way we aren't rushing the crats. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!07:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a "datapoint" (for lack of a better term), this is moot with respect to Night Gyr's recall, because it was in fact closed/"certified" by Useight - who themselves is a bureaucrat - so it can be assumed that at least one bureaucrat was aware of that one and would've notified the other bureaucrats if they deemed necessary. But of the recall petitions so far, only 2 - Gimmetrow and Night Gyr - were closed by bureaucrats. So I don't think it's good to assume that a bureaucrat will have evenseen a petition, since they could be opened, signed, and closed without any bureaucrat noticing it theoretically. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I like to keep an eye on things I've gotten involved with for awhile, in case a question or something comes up. Regarding this recall specifically, I don't think it would slip under the radar and the 30-day period pass by unnoticed. That goes for any recall, really - there is enough visibility that someone's going to happen upon it at about the right time. Just like with RFAs - if the seven days go by and a bureaucrat hasn't closed it in a timely manner, someone prods the group here. That being said, it's better when we actually do it timely and don't need to get prodded, which is where that table of ongoing RFAs is quite helpful. I don't know if Recall has (or will have) a frequency sufficient to warrant such a table, though. Anyway, if it did happen and a recall slipped under the radar and then someone came along and posted "Hey, the 30 days ran out yesterday", I don't think anyone should feel bad for rushing a bureaucrat. What to do if a recall gets closed with 25 signatures and one or more gets struck as a sockpuppet is another question altogether.Useight (talk)17:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
