Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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.

Click here to add a new section

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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Elli	195	6	3	97	Open	16:53, 7 June 2024	17 hours	no	report

It is 23:25:04 on June 6, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Desysop request (BU Rob13)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BU Rob13 (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)}

Please remove my sysop flag. Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Would appreciate if someone could pull EFM too. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done that for you. –xeno^talk 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'm not sure if you meant to, but you pulled extended-confirmed. MusikAnimal had already pulled EFM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted as an error, thank you for the ping. –xeno^talk 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is someone going to remove checkuser and oversight? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Currently on 24 hour hold on Meta. Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Mz7. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Question: would this edit have any bearing on whether a re-sysop request would be granted?

The fundamental question is whether it should be okay for administrators to revert office actions and wheel war with impunity. If the answer is yes, give me back the bit; I'll re-block Fram myself. Rob₁₃^Talk 22:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is a rhetorical question, but noting it here so that it is on the record. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the question: “Would bureaucrats grant a WP:RESYSOP request to a user who has stated an intent to further a wheel war?” –xeno^talk 23:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, I don't think any of us really believe BU Rob13 would do that. He and I may find ourselves on opposite sides of this particular situation, but I would restore his admin permissions were he to request it. WJBscribe (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, I just wanted to be sure I understood the question Carcharoth was asking. –xeno^talk 23:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume Rob is just speaking rhetorically, and/or trolling, which is not grounds for declining a resysop. When and if he decides the community no longer disgusts him, he is entitled to regain his tools. If he then actually goes and wheel wars to block someone based on private evidence he does not possess, ArbCom can deal with it. 28bytes (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Questions (rhetorical and otherwise) answered. Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I was speaking rhetorically. Having said that, I find it hysterical that this question is being asked here, while very few are advocating for Bishonen to be desysopped, who actually wheel-warred. I suppose you can do anything when the people with pitchforks agree with you, eh? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is amply demonstrating it believes "right" is not a matter of ethics and morality, it's a matter of head count. (sarcasm?) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reclosing, bureaucratic determination of "clouds" is evaluated should a resysop request be made in the future, the other questions have been answered. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop (Ansh666)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi crats, please remove my administrator rights. I'm also going to waive my right to automatic resysop - I'll run another RfA if I want to come back. The only userright I'd like is autoconfirmed. If you have any other questions, please contact me at user talk:ansh.666, as I'll be blocking this account once this edit is saved. Thanks, ansh666 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note, as a matter of policy, there is no "waiving" of that - however you certainly would never have to exercise it as filing an RfA is your option. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice: WMF desysop of Floquenbeam

Please note, the WMF Office has removed sysop access from User:Floquenbeam with the log entry: Foundation Office Action - Temporary (30 days) - assisting user under Office Action. This is mostly for our records, just as with Fram - BN is not the best venue to discuss the WMF actions. I have no way to know what will happen after 30 days (i.e. will WMF staff restore access, or will they leave it to us to deal with). I suggest a discussion at WT:ADMIN is held to determine if users that are involuntarily desysoped by office actions can be summarily restored upon their request, or if they will require a new RfA. Of course a new RfA is an available route if the requester chooses to go that way. My current read of the administrator policy says this is not a current route, as it is only available in cases of voluntary resignation or for inactivity. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the admin policy possible options started at: Wikipedia talk:Administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quoth WMFOffice: "If they wish for their admin rights to be restored, a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse, and the community may decide on the request at that time in such or another way." (for clarity) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: thanks, I didn't see that note (but haven't searched everywhere yet). So this is "left to us", thanks for that note. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/901457495 - diff for our notes. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The WMFOffice account didn't add extendedconfirmed, which appears to be the standard practice when removing +sysop. Of course, there are other rights that could be granted for the 30 days as well, but those could appear as circumvention of the desysop... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: it will be auto-granted on Floq's next edit. We only need to do it manually if it was manually removed past the autopromotion period in the past. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I don't see any other prohibition on "lesser" access listed, and most would not be able to "interfere" with the WMF Office action. I highly suggest that if Floq want's some other flags in the mean time to use the normal WP:PERM process and let someone completely uninvolved deal with the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note that Meta interface does not have 500/30 userrights, and you can't add/remove any user rights that does not exist on Meta (when trying to manipulate the user rights on Meta). That's why I had to grant +steward to remove researcher access on this wiki from someone in the past. — regards, Revi 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: although the WMF clearly has the desysop right, they've said it was temporary. For me the only meaning of that is that it should be automatically restored after 30 days. The WMF office doesn't have the right to advise on an RfA in any case. And to repeat myself, there's no need for an RfA if the desysop is temporary. It's my guess that the person who wrote the statement isn't familiar with how we work. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To me the meaning of the note is that after 30 days Floq can either (a) stand for adminship at RFA (either self-nominating or accepting someone else's nomination) or (b) be resysopped in another way; the choice is the en.wp's community. Personally I would wait for Floq to either (1) start/accept an RFA nomination or (2) ask here. If they choose (2) it would be up to the crats to determine whether to flip the bit themselves (presumably after the standard 24 hours) or ask for an RFA. If anyone else is temporarily deysopped by the WMF (over this or anoyter matter) the same options would apply to them unless specified otherwise by the WMF when blocking. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I said it elsewhere, and I will say it again here. I think it is unavoidable that the resysopping of Fram, Floquenbeam, and, potentially, Bishonen will go to ArbCom since the policies which relate to it can be read differently, and they can even be read as contradictory. It would be advantageous to use this month and file a clarification ArbCom request (or even a full case if needed). I unfortunately do not have time to do it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Temporary" means a suspension of the status quo followed by a reversion to the status quo ante. Thus, no extra steps necessary. ——SerialNumber54129 11:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked Fram. Stand by for the next desysop. Bishonen | talk 07:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

Should you do so and be desysopped, I will restore your admin rights if I remain able to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysop (Nick)

Nick (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)}

If you could remove my sysop bit please. I'll re-collect it when the Wikimedia Foundation comes to its senses and properly deals with the Fram block, the Floquenbeam desysop and the inevitable Bishonen desysop. I'm not all that busy/useful anyway, and don't have the time to really get involved in challenging the WMF at this time in the way Floq, Bish and others have. Nick (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Nick: Why not hang on to it long enough to unblock Fram if the WMF undoes Bishonen's unblock? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC) No need, Ken; it turns out handing back the tools amounts to the same thing. I'm only now realizing that unblocking Fram is a mere gesture (doesn't mean I regret making that gesture), and makes no difference to his ability to edit. See explanations on User talk:Fram: he remains banned, and will presumably be hit even more harshly if he does edit, even once. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC). Bish - It's true that Fram remains banned and that they should not, under any circumstance, edit here at this time. However, there is more than a "mere gesture" here. Each unblock requires the office to 1) re-block Fram, 2) de-sysop the unblocking admin, and thus 3) further inflame the situation. If you hand in your tools with a "I resign because of the conduct of the WMF" comment, the WMF can simply ignore it all until it blows over. It makes no difference to Fram, perhaps, but it makes a difference to 1) us and 2) the WMF, who is forced off the sidelines. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) It is a novel argument that it is the WMF inflaming the situation when an admin acts in blatant violation of the Terms of Use they agree to when they edit this site. ~ Rob13Talk 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: Out of interest, do you mind telling us how you know what actions Fram was actually banned for? I've not seen the evidence behind the ban, ArbCom hasn't, the community hasn't. Have you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC) I never said I did know. I know that Fram was already warned for his actions toward Laura, because he told us as much, and hasn't interacted with her since due to an IBAN. I can logically conclude he must have been banned for something else, especially given the WMF explicitly stated he had continued the pattern of behavior that initially got him warned and then reminded of that warning. ~ Rob13Talk 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC) OK, so you were stating your personal conclusions as fact (as, also, are many others). Thank you for the clarification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know when you want it back. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Resysop request (Floq)

WMFOffice's statement yesterday said "On these grounds, we will not hesitate to take further appropriate actions should such abuse occur again. The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today or by attempts by others to override that sanction." Since the only sanction announced against me was a temporary desysop, I was at first confused about how I could evade this sanction, and I just assumed it was part of the overall pattern of them not thinking things through. But then I thought perhaps they were threatening me with a siteban if I even asked for a resysop before the 30 days are up. I suppose that would be kind of evading the sanction. Since further action on their part just because I ask for a resysop would be 100% clear indication that they're just acting like Those Who Must Always Be Obeyed Especially When They Realize They're Wrong, I thought I would test that theory out. Seems like their response to this would be useful information for other admins deciding whether to just watch things unfold, or actively resist ceding day-to-day control of this site to them. So @WMFOffice:, and crats, I'm officially requesting a resysop today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I did try not to just sit on the sidelines; and there was nothing amusing about it either—I still can't transclude  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Or, they're simply referring to any bureaucrat that actually resysops you and helps you evade the sanction, and you've taken the "Path-of-Most-Grandstanding". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• And your comment comes across more as trolling than anything helpful or useful. Perhaps it's time to act on your retirement notice. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• It should be noted that these were unprecedented desysops, accordingly no policy exists concerning their modification by bureaucrats. Discussion on the topic is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. –xeno^talk 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  {{not done}} for now, per xeno's comment, and until a procedure can be identified. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments

• For the Record Comment: I think WMFOffice are doing nothing but escalating an already escalated issue. They are acting outside of policy, then creating new policies so they can point to them and tell people they aren't really acting outside of them, and generally acting without regard to any sense of working with the community rather than against the community. The issue with Fram should have never been an Office Action. If they were concerned, they could have shared the concerns with ArbCom and let ArbCom decide what to do. The whole "we don't want to share sensitive information" is a falacy as ArbCom regularly handles such information with the utmost care. WMFOffice made a really big mistake with this one, and their actions since the first one with Fram have only compounded the issue. They are only digging a deeper hole with their repeated nose-thumbing at the enwiki community. I agree with Primefac and xeno, though. We (crats) should not do anything right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I am still working through my thoughts, but my current reading is that the desysop of Floquenbeam was a violation of WP:OFFICE. –xeno^talk 16:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. As I mentioned in one of my comments, I think they are are acting like their actions cannot ever be questioned. I completely disagree with their handling of everything related to this incident. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  What? The relevant policy is "administrators and others who have the technical power to revert or edit office actions are strongly cautioned against doing so. Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved."[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for that pointer. It goes on to say “When in doubt, community members should consult the Foundation member of staff that performed the office action, or their line manager.“ Who performed the action, and who is their “line manager”? –xeno^talk 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  To (likely mis)quote Ian Malcolm, "You guys got so wrapped up in figuring out if you could, you never got around to asking if you should."rdfox 76 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: To quote:

  The Foundation does not hold editorial or supervisory control over content and conduct in the Wikimedia projects; this work is done by a largely autonomous community of volunteers who, in accordance with our Terms of Use, create their own policies meant to uphold the educational goals of our movement. However, in cases where community actions have not been effective and/or legal considerations require us to intervene, we may take actions accordingly.

  This is clearly a conduct issue, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with how Fram or Floq acted. There were no legal considerations here (or at least WMFOffice has failed repeatedly to mention that it was a legal issue, in which case, there are other problems that need to be addressed with how they (don't) train their paid staff). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Additionally:

  The actions listed under this section are generally performed at the Foundation’s discretion, as a possible outcome of evaluation of a separate report. Direct requests for these actions will generally be deferred to appropriate community governance mechanisms. In the past, the Foundation has only taken these actions under extraordinary circumstances.

  Exactly what in any of this is an "extraordinary circumstance"? Nothing WMFOffice has deigned to share even comes to close to appraching "extraordinary" under any stretch of the imagination. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • A real "community policy" that one, Wikipedia:Office actions - top 6 contributors (by text) - Kalliope (WMF) 51%, Kbrown (WMF), Jimbo Wales, Philippe (WMF) and 2 IP addresses [2] -- Begoon 16:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Begoon: The Inner Party doesn't care about such plebeian things as "community support". Silly prole. </sarc> ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Maybe it's time for a change in the language of the notice at the top of the page to the language that John J. Bulten suggested as more accurate than the current one way back in June of 2008... rdfox 76 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• The full office actions policy is on Meta at m:Office actions. You'll note it includes secondary actions --> removal of advanced rights. I'm honestly baffled that some of you are trying to present some quasi-legalese argument for why you would be justified in overriding an office action. This is a website on the internet, and the WMF's website at that. This isn't the way to go about improving relations and moving forward. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, you "go about improving relations and moving forward" by accusing people who disagree with your actions of sexist motives akin to Gamergate apparently. -- Begoon 17:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? I don't think I've ever accused anyone of having sexist motives on-wiki before. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  You didn't, but the board chair did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: I keep seeing that mentioned. Where was this accusation made? Do you have a link or diff? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  WMF Chair - [3] - "this pattern of trying to prove, in order to absolve a banned admin, that there must be either something in her past, or that she must have done something wrong or used undue influence for her own personal gain, is sadly familiar to most women in the internet, and has strong textbook reminiscences of for instance Gamergate." -- Begoon 17:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's the one, thanks - and it's the first time, as far as I've seen, that gender-based accusations have been brought into it - by the WMF chair of all people! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, when you can't provide a real answer, deflect to a Godwin's law-esque argument. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  yes -and apologies to Ajraddatz, I should have said "one goes about" instead of "you". I obviously never intended to imply Ajraddatz had said this. -- Begoon 17:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation, no apology necessary. Was just confused and hopeful that I hadn't implied something unintentionally. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Ajraddatz: No crat (that I'm aware of) is proposing taking action. What I've seen here is discussion of why the actions of WMFOffice are not acceptable, even using their own policies that they keep changing, without any discussion or input from the community, to justify whatever they want to do. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Glad to hear no actions are being proposed, because some of the comments here and on the FRAM page suggest otherwise. It has been long-established knowledge, if not policy, that reversing an office action is bad and will get you into trouble. This is codified in the "Who performs office actions?" section of the local and global policy, and has been there since the start (Jimbo quote). And even if they were flagrantly violating their own public-facing policy, the ToU gives them broad powers to enforce vague behavioural requirements. This problem isn't going to be solved by pointing out all the sentences that they may be violating. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• That section exists locally also, however, as we are not dealing with major breaches of trust [...] that are not possible to be shared [...] due to privacy reasons, the relevant section is instead Unauthorized modifications to office actions [...] may lead to sanctions [such as revocation of rights]. When in doubt, community members should consult the Foundation member of staff that performed the office action, or their line manager. However, details regarding an office action are only shared to the extent that they do not compromise the safety of users, the public or the project. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I see now. Who performed the action? Who is their line manager? –xeno^talk 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I imagine WMFOffice is supposed to reflect an official position of the Foundation, and as such their "line manager" would be the Board. My (Non-administrator comment): It's true that the WMF have, and have always had given themselves broad discretion to make administrative actions in extraordinary cases under OFFICE. It is also true that such actions are normally taken after the community process fails to achieve a timely resolution, where a process exists. IMO T&S have shot themselves in the foot here. This particular office action, and the stony silence after, is unlikely to engender Trust, nor do I expect it to make any measurable difference to Safety. Of course, I'm not paid to do this so what do I know. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, "line manager" is never the Board of Trustees. By definition the Board of Trustees can never hold one of the staff to account, only ask questions of the senior management and hold their appointed CEO to account. For this reason asking Trustees questions about this is a very poor starting point as they cannot be seen to interfere with the work of non-senior employees. At worst it would be the CEO, however in practice one should navigate up the tree from the lowest point, starting with the manager for T&S. This means that the most obvious "line manager" is Jan Eissfeldt, then (probably) Maggie dennis, then Valerie D’Costa, then ... probably Katherine Maher. Admittedly the WMF actually makes navigating their staff tree unnecessarily obscure. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The current situation suggests that that may be less accidental than good faith allows one to assume... ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was only partially serious, mainly going off the "WMF bans are appealable to noone, ever. Completely final. Nope, nope, nope. Done talking." thing that's written policy. Thanks for doing the research though, the structure of the WMF site completely confounds me and I didn't get anywhere with that. I don't actually have much of an opinion about the ban (I have not taken 4 weeks to comb through contributions, though I would tentatively say that it's longer than I would expect, especially considering what supposedly precipitated the action). What troubles me is the absolute lack of communication. The boilerplate responses are concerning, and so is not consulting with the community processes. Yah, Foundation bans are a last resort, but apparently we can have it be our first as well, just by not resorting to anything else. Go from the top down until we hit someone that can provide an explanation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c, multiple ) NJ: It could not be more clear in policy and in common sense that the "discretion" is in the WMF to decide when the "not been effective and/or legal considerations require" has happened. Otherwise it would have to read something like, "let's take a vote to decide" (or not to be facetious, "let's ask Alanscottwalker or NJ to decide on effectiveness"). (On a side note, Admins rely on their discretion all the time and on their power to exercise discretion so best to be careful before discretion is wikilawyered away.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering why Floq has to go through a RFA in 30 days. a) He has not lost the confidence of the Wikipedia community. b) The WMFO said the desysop was "temporary" - it would be temporary if rights were restored at the end of thirty days - if he has to go through a new RFA the removal is not temporary. MarnetteD|Talk 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

See WT:ADMIN. Since these actions are unprecedented on this project, local policy is silent on the restoration pathways. –xeno^talk 17:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that we have failed to predict these interferences with our community processes, and so have not enshrined measured to deal with them, does not justify inaction. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the widest view, I can see it as a prohibition with an automatic expiration of the prohibition, coupled with the involuntary removal. Once no longer prohibited, how we deal with the involuntary removal should be up to us, thus the discussion I opened at WT:ADMIN. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since they specifically said it was a temporary removal of rights, I will be first in line to restore them at the end of the 30 days. Maybe I should set myself an alarm. I think WP:IAR applies in spades to this instance. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dead right Nihonjoe; personally, I think their phrasing merely indicates that they know we have myriad arcane procedures, are uncertain as to how we would usually approach it (and, having so many procedures, they probably assume we have got this eventuality already covered!), and are effectively saying: this is what we are doing for thirty days, after that we don't care. As I said above, "temporary" strongly suggests a return to the status quo ante. ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Nihonjoe, as I was reading over this "IAR" occurred to me at the very moment I started reading your comment. Yes. Ha, I remember getting ready for RfA, thinking "what the hell am I going to say if I get asked about that". And even last week, as I went over the Five Pillars with my students, I found I had nothing to say on the topic: I do now. This is the most legitimate invocation I can imagine. To be picky, I suppose we invoke it here because there isn't a rule, and we judge what to do here based on extensive context and experience. Here, or on one of the other half-dozen boards where this discussion is taking place... Drmies (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't often invoke WP:IAR, but I think IAR in this case fits perfectly with the spirit of what the WMFOffice account included when they idiotically desysopped Floq. Yes, we have no specific policy wording that covers this situation, but that's likely because none of us thought the WMFOffice would ever do something so moronic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, Nihonjoe, I would agree with you both on this. I hate WP:IAR (or, if not it, the fact it is used too frequently over silly and minor points). But in a situation like this I think it the ideal situation to at least raise the question of whether to use it or not. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fae: it was Jan Eissfeldt who told me that a statement was being written. Maggie hasn't been involved with this. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s unfortunate; would that she had, many kBs and much good will would have been preserved. –xeno^talk 17:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maggie is on medical leave. Not vacation. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Maggie is an excellent and knowledgeable Wikipedian. Her thoughts would be useful for everyone. --Fæ (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Sending well wishes to the moon rider. –xeno^talk 19:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

For sure. The fact that she is out actually explains a lot about how this happened. Nathan ^T 01:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The lack of transparency is the most obvious aspect of this issue, but I think the underlying cause is a large-scale assault on freedom of speech that goes far beyond Wikipedia. Office actions were based on the idea that we should trust the WMF to act only in extraordinary circumstances. And I mean, if this were still the Golden Age of the Internet and they were saying "Mike Godwin told us we gotta do this", that would be the end of that. But Mike Godwin doesn't work there any more. Editors are keelhauled for such nebulous offenses as making fun of requests for unusual gender pronouns. So when they say they "have" to do something against Fram, we have no idea whether they uncovered something that would make editors say 'that's kind of awful', or whether they've secretly hired a room full of censors over at Cognizant to impose "civility" because our community backwardly hangs on to the idea that occasional expressions of emotion can be tolerated. Hell, for all I know the George Soros org that handles their money has handed them two pages of directives... They're saying "trust us" and we're saying "trust you to do what?" If you don't get them to start talking about details in this case, you had better get them to put something down on paper about rights they respect, not "actions they take when they feel like it without explanation". Wnt (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If you could make a point without relying on conspiracy fantasy and fakenews, you might have something to say that others could understand. --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam resysopped by WJBscribe

•  Done. With apologies to my fellow bureaucrats, but I do not agree and have accepted this request. This project has clear policies and procedures that have not been followed. These acts of trampling over the autonomy of this community must stop. I was mindful of Jimbo's request to let the dust settle before taking further action, but with apologies cannot accede to it. Even back in the day that Jimbo would step in and remove admin rights in extreme circumstances, he would refer the matter to ArbCom for a final decision. This has not happened here. Jimbo recognised over time the need for this community to be self-governing to the highest extent possible. Recent actions have shown WMF willing to grant itself local authority beyond that which many found objectionable when held by Jimbo. He at least was an accountable person, rather than a faceless body. If the consequence of my actions is a removal of permissions or a ban so be it. I regard myself to be a servant of the community, not the WMF. If the WMF wants its own servants to edit or administer this project, I invite them to recruit suitable paid staff. If not, it must pay suitable deference to the volunteer community. WMF remain able to refer Floquenbean's actions to ArbCom for sanction if they so choose. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  WJBscribe, your rationale is compelling (and your backbone is impressive.) You have my admiration. 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  (e/c, and annoyed I wasn't first to post here) Thanks, WJBscribe. Replied on my talk page, but I also want to say here that this is appreciated, and an honourable and brave thing. And the right thing to do, which if you're like me I know made it easier to do. I'll accept any sanction the en.wiki ArbCom wish to mete out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. I will also accept any action from ArbCom and have referred my action to them. WJBscribe (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  My belated compliments as well Buffs (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is an embarrassment. Crats are supposed to be some of the most trusted members of the community, yet here you are escalating a wheel war with the Wikimedia Foundation. How hard is it to wait to see what comes of the board meeting on a 14th? You claim to be representing the community at large, but you have established no consensus to go through with this action. AdA&D 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  AdA&D: while I soundly agree with your other points (escalating is not the best strategy, give the board a chance to look into it), claiming WJBscribe (or Bish, or Floq) do not have the community behind them in this is disingenious. Regardless of whether that support is lasting and whether the actions are the best to achieve our common goals, they very clearly have the overwhelming support of the community now and at the time they were made. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  They have the support of a very vocal portion of the community, but I am not convinced that they have the overwhelming support of the community as a whole. I know am not alone in regarding a 'crat wheel warring with the Foundation to escalate a situation in defence of an (alleged) harasser (Fram) completely contrary to everything that crats are supposed to be. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  Just to clear, irrespective of the issues surrounding the actions taken against Fram by WMF, what was totally unacceptable to me was WMF overriding community processes to desysop Floquenbeam out of process, and purport to ban the community from holding an RfA for 30 days. There was no reason whatsoever, no possible private information, that required this action to be taken by WMF. All action by Floq were on wiki and the matter could quickly have been referred to ArbCom for a ruling as to whether or not Floquenbeam ought to be desysopped for reversing the WMF's block of Fram. If it transpires that being an administrator and bureaucrat of this project means that the will and process of the community will always be trumped by actions - right or wrong - of WMF staffers, then I do not want to hold either of those positions. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I do not see that the WMF enforcing the terms of use on a WMF site to be in any way unacceptable. The will of the community will always be lesser than the will of the WMF - whether you like it or not that is the only way that it can be unless every member of the community is qualified in California law and in possession of all evidence (public and private) regarding all matters (which is, for obvious reasons, impossible). If you do not want to contribute in accordance with the terms of use - which explicitly allow the WMF to enforce them as they see fit - then you are under no obligation to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  It was unacceptable to you, WJBScribe. Then don't agree to contribute as a crat here under WP:TOU and WP:CONSENSUS. You can and it would be honorable to resign if you find being in a project position under the terms of use, untenable. But causing other people to resign because you can't keep your tools in abeyance for a time is, at the least, disappointing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, I think at least four other editors agree with you so far. ——SerialNumber54129 09:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think a discussion is premature, WJBscribe definitively has a right to do what they did, even if it isn't a situation that is explained in the crat mandate. You cannot expect all-encompassing policy, anyone complaining here should complain at the ArbCom thread. I personally commend WJBscribe for doing something that the other crats wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole. I'm neutral about the authority required to carry out such a resysop but the recent actions by the WMF and the overwhelming consensus against them means that they certainly don't enjoy confidence of the community, it is only right for crats to act keeping that in mind. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Thryduulf: Uh, can we stop referring to Fram as a "harasser" until we actually know why we was banned? Because we don't. Indeed, if what he has posted is correct, he was banned for telling ArbCom to fuck off. I expect that from certain people, but not from others. C'mon. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC) It is not in doubt that Fram has harassed people - hence his iban for one thing - and we know this was relevant, at least in part, to the decision to ban him, so the description is correct. We simply do not know whether harassment is the whole story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC) There are ample doubts about the justification for the IBan-yet-not-IBan. ∯WBGconverse 09:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) And even if there were, we don't know if it's relevant here. You don't see newspapers routinely referring to "serial adulterer Boris Johnson" or "cocaine freak Michael Gove" when reporting on something that's not relevant to those stories. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I can't help seeing attempts to poison the well here. "Oh, but Fram's one of those evil scary harassers. Lock him up and throw away the key." Along with trying to make it seem established that he actually is, when that's far from clear. Reyk YO! 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Thryduulf: "Fram harassed people"? Diffs please, or that's a blockable personal attack. There's no evidence of harassment anywhere. We do know that one person (LauraHale) felt harassed. We also know that some WMF staffers (who knew that Laura was the boss's friend) felt it appropriate to take her complaints at face value. But feeling harassed is not the same thing as being harassed. Laura was churning out rotten articles, Fram applied due scrutiny to them. These articles deserved every bit of critical scrutiny they got. Fram was entirely correct in everything he did about LauraHale. Scrutinizing bad writing is necessary and legitimate, no matter how bad it feels to the person at the receiving end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I am merely stating the facts as I see them. We know Fram was interaction banned (effectively, whether by that name or not I can't remember) by the foundation because there was sufficient evidence for them to conclude that at least one person who felt harassed by him was being harassed. This happened off-wiki so obviously I cannot present diffs of it. I know of at least two other people who have alleged they have been harassed by Fram too (at least one of those was in a private conversation, I don't recall whether they have also made the allegations public - not all victims chose to do so). To avoid getting anywhere deeper into this avoiding the main point than is needed I have altered by comment to "(alleged)" harasser. The ulimate point is that a 'crat has reversed an OFFICE action without permission from the OFFICE. It's worth remembering that "unpopular" and "incorrect" are not synonyms. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC) No, nothing of what Fram did happened off-wiki (at least we have no reasons to believe anything like that happened, as nobody has claimed it did), so if you think there was harassment, the diffs for it must be out there. Cite them, or be silent about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm saying the WMF i-ban was placed off wiki, and that at least some of the allegations against Fram were made off-wiki, not that the harassment was off-wiki (at least some of the behaviour Fram engaged in that resulted in the iban was on-wiki, and likewise it was on-wiki behaviour that led to at least one of the other complaints I know exists. I do not recall if any allegations of off-wiki harassment have been made). That the i-ban was placed, and some of the reasons for it are very much public (e.g. in the statement Fram made on Commons that was copied over to what is now WP:FRAM. That page contains plenty enough other information that none of what I am saying should be at all controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC) +1, "This happened off-wiki so obviously I cannot present diffs of it", personal attacks are unacceptable from anyone, including you, a trusted oversighter and sysop. If you don't know what you are talking about and are unable to provide evidence for your serious claims, then I agree, you should shut up or expect to face sanctions for making personal attacks. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of "criminal" does not mean you are not calling a fellow Wikipedian a criminal, in writing, in public. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Not all harassment is criminal harassment. I have not personally seen evidence that Fram engaged in behaviour that I know or strongly suspect would be classed as criminal behaviour if all parties were subject to the laws of England and Wales (I don't know enough abot the relevant laws in other places to have an opinion about other jurisdictions). Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Wow, you really need to stop digging now. These dark insinuations ("I haven't personally seen evidence" and "at least some of the behavior was on-wiki...", each of these obviously with a big implied "but...." at the end) – this is beyond the pale. Of course, I haven't personally seen evidence that you murdered your wife either, and at least some of the behaviour I've seen of you has not involved child porn... – Anyway, final warning; I'll block you if you dig yourself any deeper here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Come on, enough people have been blocked/unblocked/etc already, so can we all try to rein it in a bit? And, Fut.Perf., I don't think it's a good idea to threaten to block someone you are personally in a disagreement with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I'm not in a disagreement with him. I warned him about something, and evidently he didn't like the warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man very carefully before threatening to block a fellow administrator over a thread at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I think there's a conversation to be had about whether continual unfounded accusations of harassment are themselves harassment, but I'd defer it until there's less steam coming out of everyone's ears. Reyk YO! 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC) That conversation, at least, has been had: Arbcom state that An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. ——SerialNumber54129 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I note your opinion but disagree with you. I shall leave it at that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Fut Perfect: Please retract, what you wrote about knowledge of a personal relationship by another person for which you have no evidence; and WP:INVOLVED would apply to this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Could a crat please close a (part of) this thread which is clearly developing unconstructively and without any benefit for the community. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysop (TheDJ)

Closed by Dweller. See my comments at the end of the thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just noticed WJBscribe's resysop of Floquenbeam. I cannot support a community that undermines T&S. Also please take my IAdmin. Good luck everyone. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)  Done. Please let us know when you want it back. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) TheDJ, This saddens me. (Which is not to say I disagree). S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) So this will technically go down as a voluntary protest resignation in support of the WMF over WP:FRAM, by someone who officially has done nothing wrong, remains entitled to the mop, and may have the mop back on request. I make no attempt to suggest otherwise. That said, I wish to simply put it on record that, over this exact same incident, TheDJ can be observed as having expressed an animosity towards the community, and as such, I have expressed the opinion that they have violated the community's trust and have forfeited the right to their mop (from an ideological perspective, at least). I have requested that they resign and submit to a new RfA accordingly. Again, I'm not suggesting that my point of view is binding in any way. But if TheDJ requests his tools back from the 'crats, it should at least exist on-record, somewhere, that another admin expressed doubts regarding his adminship, and requested that he put it to the community, for review. He could not be required to acknowledge this, of course, but if such an event comes to pass, he should acknowledge the request and explain why he isn't willing to put himself before the community. A readminship is supposed to be uncontentious, and while procedurally correct, I do not think this readminship could be considered "uncontentious". If he doesn't acknowledge this, someone else should note the request, or at least ping me so I can record my objections and concerns relating to this admin and this desysop. Again, not issuing any decree here, just noting my opinion. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I really disagreed with what TheDJ said, but come on man, let him go in peace. --Rschen7754 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) The fact you admit that TheDJ has "has done nothing wrong, remains entitled to the mop, and may have the mop back on request", but then continue to poison the well on a future re-sysop request while continuing to deny they did nothing wrong is a disingenuous concern. So, don't be surprised when this comment is rightfully ignored if he does request re-sysop. — Moe Epsilon 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I disagree with DJ (nearly always) and my opinions of him can't be any more low, than now but from a policy based viewpoint, the de-sysop is not under cloud and he is entitled to get his tools back w/o fuss. ∯WBGconverse 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Aspersions, smears and personal attacks are not funny or cute. Let's be clear: I did not "admit" that TheDJ has done nothing wrong. I would vehemently argue that TheDJ is a toxic, corrupt and invalid administrator who has most certainly done something very, very wrong (I actually used the term "quisling"). To say otherwise is a pretty shameless and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. I clearly worded my statement to say that officially he has done nothing wrong and remains entitled to the mop, and that means that I will respect hard rules and policy considerations. I am absolutely not saying that there is no wrongdoing and forfeiture of the entitlement to the mop ideologically, and that's literally my whole point of posting. Just because technically there is no cloud does not mean that there are no concerns, and just because an admin can insult the community, resign, and then get the mop back without official difficulty does not mean that one can't question the readminship in such a scenario. All I said is that TheDJ is technically, or officially allowed to ignore my concerns. That doesn't render my concerns invalid. If someone would actually like to hear the concerns, they can ask me on my talk page. But I assure you in advance, they most certainly are real, and they most certainly would be taken as such by the community in an RfA. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC) And, to pre-empt any debates about DJ's merits as an admin, I am not trying to argue this point here. If I am so wrong, then the community can reject my viewpoint at RfA, and I will be thoroughly humiliated and ashamed for making such a dramatic assumption. But if DJ is so confident that the community would continue to back their adminship, then there's no reason for them to deny my simple request that they test their community trust. It is not a request I make lightly or casually, and I will debate it in the correct forum if given the chance. But if I'm just overreacting, then fine. Prove me wrong. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Swarm "Aspersions, smears and personal attacks are not funny or cute" but ironically, you continue to cast them anyway, seemingly on those who disagree with you. Perhaps what you've said about TheDJ may instead be rightfully applied to you and that it is you who need to reassess if the community has confidence in you as an administrator. KoopaLoopa (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Echoing what KoopaLoopa said. Also, if you have legitimate concerns about why he shouldn't be re-sysopped, then this would be the forum to discuss it and not your talk page, otherwise it is you casting aspersions without providing evidence. — Moe Epsilon 07:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Why hasn't Swarm been blocked?! It seems an ArbCom case concerning their fitness as an administrator would be appropriate. I suppose we members of the "community" could express a point of view on their "vehement" and bilious arguing first. I am doing so here.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC) TBH if everyone who had cast aspersions about (or even straight abused) other editors during this fiasco was blocked, we'd be about 20 editors down at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I think this level of vehemence is over the top; even though I agree that someone who wants people mass-banned for disagreeing with him has no business wielding the tools and I would oppose a reconfirmation RfA. Reyk YO! 07:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) (←) I'm not casting vague and unsubstantiated aspersions. I don't know DJ, nor do I have any problem with him personally. The issue is no vague secret or personal attack, it's presently playing out in real time at WP:FRAM. Hell, I'm hosting the offending comment on my user page. This isn't some dirty trick. I'm only gently pointing out the existence of my objection here without specifics, purely for the purposes of preserving some dignity and restraint regarding this resignation, and in order to refrain from anything that could be construed as "gravedancing", while still making the important note for the record that there is an objection that I would like to be taken seriously. That objection can be addressed and debated iff and when the time comes. My restraint is out of respect for DJ. I doubt either DJ or the Crats want the argument as to whether he deserves to be an admin hashed out here and now. I mean, come on. Just because I think that DJ would be desysopped-by-community in a reconfirmation doesn't mean that it's appropriate to make that case at a BN resignation where it technically doesn't carry weight, and that doesn't mean that I'm personally attacking him because I hate him. If I'm wrong, and people want this hashed out at his resignation, then we can certainly argue the point here and now. But policy-wise, it can't be settled here. And surely nobody actually wants the subjective issue of community trust dragged out at DJ's resignation at BN, where the matter is unenforceable anyways. There are specific and inflexible rules that the crats have to follow no matter what. The "proper forum" for hashing this out would be the reconfirmation RfA, which is all I'm asking for. If DJ refuses that request, then there's not much I can do beyond note my objection here. And if someone thinks that I should be blocked for that, please, go for it. I'm not standing behind any sort of privilege or special protection. If someone thinks I deserve to be blocked, whether it is an administrator, a crat, an arbitrator, or the body of Arbcom itself, go for it. I will appeal fairly and squarely via the normal processes. If someone thinks an Arbcom case is necessary, then fine, file one. I will defend myself and accept whatever consequences I have to face. I actually have faith in our systems, even if they rule against me. And I will operate within our systems as I always have. I have literally filed an Arbcom case against myself in response to accusations of misconduct. I have absolutely no fear of examination, transparency, and consequences. The lack of an inherent right to community oversight is precisely the issue here. If DJ rejects community oversight, that's my only issue. If I get blocked by Arbcom or the community, or if someone argues that I should be, I respect that. I don't think requesting an admin run a reconfirmation after directly attacking the community is grounds for discipline, but if I'm in the wrong, then fine. I can accept community-driven oversight. I'm merely asking for DJ to do the same, and more importantly, for Fram to be given that fundamental right. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) In case anyone wonders, this is exactly the kind of textbook bullying that justifies T&S acting outside of the community. Your egregious personal attacks on theDJ above should earn you a block, but hey, it's the heat of the moment, emotions are running high, plus you have SuperMario admin armor, so you can attack another admin until he resigns, then after he does, continue attack him in the most vicious manner, then claim the high road. Take your own medicine. Resign and submit to a reconfirmation RfA. Your attitude is disgusting. MLauba (Talk) 09:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) MLauba, any comments on DJ proposing a few days back, that all those who supported some sort of token symbolic action against the WMF, be site-banned by WMF? Or, his blatant trolling over here ? Or, shall he be excused because of his civil demeanor? ∯WBGconverse 09:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Butting in, if I may, but Swarm is entirely right to be pointing out their observations and opinions on other editor's behaviour, and frankly, those wanting to shut down debate by pointing the finger of "incivility" at them should be ashamed of themselves. CassiantoTalk 09:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Crat commentSwarm, your opinion is noted, but this bureaucrat points out that we have a fairly well-defined notion now of what 'under a cloud' means, which is that someone resigned to escape scrutiny. WP:RESYSOP is worded carefully, that the user resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. Crats are elected to follow policy to the letter. Anything more about this is polemic and belongs at a different venue, so I'm closing this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I agree and have not suggested anything beyond this. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

May be best if Crats don't risk appearing to side with perceived harassers and abusers

Thread withdrawn by user (questions or concerns about individual bureaucrat actions are best directed to the bureaucrat in question first). –xenotalk 15:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There have been comical suggestions Fram might have been banned for telling Arbcom to F off. WMF have been crystal clear that Fram was banned as a result of reports relating to (what they see as) "harassing and abusing others." In fairness, it's 99.999% likely Fram never intends to harass anyone, they merely try to uphold the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Something at which, in some ways, they are fantastically good at. Also, the vast majority of Fram's attacks are against male contributors, AFAIK there's only been a single female who's been subject to his sustained attentions. But Fram's 14 years of contributions has abundant examples where he took enforcement actions that could be seen as harassment by the WMF, or in indeed by regular editors. On commons, Fram has repeatedly singled out Laura, leading various net denizens to conclude she might be the "grass", and hence to start up further hostility against her. Fram's long been subjecting that editor to negative attention. For example, this 2012 attempt to topic ban Laura, which was snow opposed, with Fram being advised to fix the mistakes in his own article creations, rather than focus his hyper criticism on a prodigious & friendly content creator like Laura. Instead of moving on, Fram kept on attacking , year after year, sometimes getting results when not enough sensible folk up turned up to defend Laura, e.g. with this 2014 attack. This is typical of a long list of repeated attacks by Fram against other highly active content creators, which WMF have likely examined in depth during their weeks of analyses. (Most of it not against Laura, and it's very possible she wasn't the one who reported him.) As Doncram has stated, it gave ordinary editors a "tiny bit of hope" once the WMF finally took action on behalf of the numerous but powerless community of content creators, against a member of the Goliath like enforcement corps. It's understandable that folk like Flo & Bish saw things differently, seeing WMF as the Goliath. Their courageous & timely actions were possibly even necessary to get the ideal resolution to this matter, which is for the board to persuade the Foundation to lift the ban on Fram, albeit with no censure for the WMF or those who supported them, and then for matters to be discussed calmly, to facilitate different sides seeing each other's point of view. It's less easy to understand why crats decided to resysop Flo without waiting for the 30 days to expire. The project could have survived without Flo having the tools for a few weeks. The action achieved nothing essential, and makes it harder to build bridges & heal the distress caused by this incident. With Crats siding so firmly with the enforcement crew, which some will see as being not just against WMF, but against the wider community of powerless regular editors, no wonder there's "entire private groups of people agreeing with (the DJ) too scared to post." The resysop was unnecessary and uncratly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @FeydHuxtable: BN is not for your opinion on crats. Post this to the ArbCom request posted by WJBscribe. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Without addressing the other points, WJBScribe acted on his own. This was certainly not a decision of the crats as a whole, see the discussion above. --Rschen7754 14:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC) It's nice how you perceive the threads which led to her TBans as examples, where not enough sensible people turned up and those where she evaded sanctions as the example of optimal discussions. I have known you as one of the sanest members of the community for a long while, but this ain't it. ∯WBGconverse 14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC) The WMF have been a lot of things this week but I didn't expect to see anyone describe their actions as "crystal clear". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)