Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Shortcut

Other discussions

[edit]

Questions

[edit]
  • The bureaucrats are 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. Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats may remove their privileges. - should we instead say The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they should remove the administrator privileges. Should the administrator fail to pass an RRfA or administrator election, bureaucrats will remove their privileges.
  • Does it include a power to revoke crat/CU/OS right? Otherwise an admin that is recalled will keep these rights - and what about a standing ArbCom member be recalled (which can happen one year after election)?

GZWDer (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember in which of the many discussions it came up, but the consensus was very clearly for "may remove" not "should remove" - the crats have discretion to act in the best interests of the project. Normally that will be removing admin privs from someone who has not passed a re-RFA or election but exceptional circumstances can happen. One example given was that if they have signed up to participate in an admin election that happens shortly after the 30 days is over.
Checkusers and Oversighters serve at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, only they can remove those privs. If someone with those rights is desysopped then it is almost certain that the committee will review their suitability for the position(s) and remove them if they feel it is appropriate.
If a sitting arbcom member is recalled and fails to pass a re-RFA then they will continue as an arbitrator unless they resign or the provisions at WP:ARBCOND are applied. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Bureaucrat § Removal of permissions, administrators whose admin privileges are removed through the recall process also have their bureaucrat privileges removed.
Bureaucrats are trusted to understand the background of the process and are given discretion around the timing of the removal of administrative privileges, with the understanding that this does not give them discretion to disregard community consensus in a recall petition or re-request for adminiship. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
administrators whose admin privileges are removed through the recall process also have their bureaucrat privileges removed: I wish that was the case, but I read "If an administrator has failed to pass a required recall" as applying only to the +sysop right, particularly given this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I accidentally misinterpreted the heading "Removal of permissions" and skimmed the section too quickly. (I was also misremembering the details of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 181#Alternate proposal (Procedural community desysop).) isaacl (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The process is not looking for a consensus (certainly not from the community), it is looking for a factional vote, and is decided by a factional vote, based on any or no rationale -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Arbcom members, CU and OS can only be removed by their colleagues and the Arbcom respectively. CU and OS folks probably shouldn't be necessarily be directly answerable to the community primarily cause their work by definition includes non-public information. Sohom (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an Oversighter, I'm answerable to the community for the actions I take as an editor and as an administrator. For my actions relating to suppression, I'm answerable only to my colleagues, the Arbitration Committee and the m:Ombuds commission because they are the only ones able to view all the relevant evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding with committee members would be that they would just lose the admin rights, but retain their membership. Granted, I would presume that it would never get that far. An incident where the community felt the need to recall a committee member probably would end up resolved by action from the group. Without going into excessive details, the committee has disciplined its own members in the past and I don't see a situation where this would be an issue in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first question above, I would support GZWDer's proposal to change "may remove their privileges" to "will remove their privileges" if the administrator "fails to pass an RRfA or administrator election". The case that Thryduulf is referring to, when the RRfA or election has not yet been held, is different. But if the RRfA or election has been held and the admin failed to pass, the expectation is that bureaucrats will remove the privileges. Tim Smith (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come here directly from AN (related to the Bbb23 admin recall case). I think there should be some clause where an admin can automatically have their rights revoked, without a) the 30-day time period (if the matter is of a serious nature - I would leave it to the community to discuss where that line should be drawn) and b) without the case going to the Arbitration Committee, as cases can take a while there, and the process is "expensive" (that essay is on SPI, but it is easy to draw parallels). My concern is that, within that 30-day time period, there is enough time for an administrator who has passed recall to continue carrying out administrative actions that may have been previously condemned by the community (or Arbcom, where that applies). Patient Zerotalk 22:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patient Zero, any other admin can block an admin if their behavior is a serious problem. Valereee (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair Valereee, but I do suppose that in cases where the issues are purely caused by the administrative tools, immediate revocation of said tools is arguably better than a block, as a block could be argued to be punitive. It would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis but what could be proposed is a sort of flowchart system to this procedure (which could be diverted from, of course, per IAR if felt necessary). Patient Zerotalk 22:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A block for misuse of tools isn't generally considered punitive but preventative. I'd do it without hesitation if I thought there was a crisis. There are hundreds of active admins, only a handful of bureaucrats. Valereee (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're absolutely right there Valereee. I feel reassured now that there are adequate procedures in place for if this were to ever happen - if anything, my coming here was more over fear of a potential loophole being created, but you've done well to reassure me. I appreciate it. Patient Zerotalk 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitation Committee has the power to remove the admin bit if the circumstances require it. Donald Albury 23:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely do Donald Albury, but Arbcom cases can take a while to get going at times, and rely on a system where arbs have to support/oppose/recuse on points of fact, and that of course influences the final decision made. My proposal would hopefully "cut out the middle man" in that regard, but once again, I am now confident (owing to Valereee's response) that current procedure surrounding administrators willing to carry out difficult blocks, who would be willing to step in when required, is sufficient. Patient Zerotalk 23:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Level 1 desysops are typically pretty fast, Level 2 desysops are slower, but are also a option as well in these kinds of cases where time is of essence. Obviously if the admin account is compromised, (or intentionally causing harm) they can always just be blocked or locked. Sohom (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom can desysop by motion, and have done so in very short time when necessary. There is no need for any new process. Donald Albury 23:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - you're absolutely right, and I feel rather foolish for forgetting this is a possibility. This is also reassuring - thank you Donald Albury. Patient Zerotalk 23:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]