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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · 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)

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)

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)

DeltaQuadBot (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello 'crats, Please change the +sysop access for DeltaQuadBot from temporary to indefinite per the approved BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 6. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise. I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on en.wikipedia in this situation. Please remove my administratorship.-gadfium 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. I am sorry to see you go but I completely understand. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It has been withdrawn.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I did the needful. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Disheartening to read Boing! said Zebedee's comments and the comments of others. I won't labor it, just please remove my admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Disheartening is a good word for it. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast action. A more detailed explanation is now on my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my admin privileges - there's a resignation explanation on my talk page for anyone who is interested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. It's a shame we're losing so many good admins over this but I completely understand. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't been involved in any of the Fram-related discussions, and I'm not here to do so. The only thing I wanted to say was to point out a statement by JEissfeldt (WMF) yesterday, that said, in part (it's a long statement): "I appreciate in particular the idea put forward by Newyorkbrad and his having been explicit that it could only be valid if it is true that the community has reached accurate conclusions about the facts of the case. However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB's condition is not met." I interpret that to mean that this was more than an incivility ban and that the Foundation will not tell us what it is, just as the Committee sometimes won't tell us certain things, which we have to accept. I don't know if that makes any difference to you, Boing! said Zebedee, but I thought it would be worth mentioning. I'll miss you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  I did read it, thanks, and it was not until after I read it that I made my decision. I won't go into my whole thoughts about that statement here, as it really won't help. And thanks for your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Regarding Bbb23's statement "just as the Committee sometimes won't tell us certain things", I have never seen the Arbitration Committee (if that is who is being referred to) evade publicly giving all of the necessary and relevant details on any matter, excepting details which would seriously violate privacy (real names, etc.). ArbCom always summarizes actions taken and explains them. They have never refused to give rationales and details when asked. ArbCom is specifically tasked with privately handling matters or details that would violate our privacy policies, and the fact that ArbCom has not yet privately received information or details from WMF which would explain their rationale and due diligence, to me speaks volumes. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Softlavender: did you see Opabinia saying on 22 June [4] : "dialogue with arbcom" (or the subset able to join in) did happen, the T&S members who attended were very generous with their time, and I think we're all still digesting and considering followup starship.paint (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Which makes them now seem rather irrelevant; who now will want to run for the poisoned chalice that is arbcom 2020. T & S have breached a deeply rooted social contract, the effects of which are filtering down through the ranks. I must say, Boing!'s gesture here is very meaningful, and appreciated, much as I am aghast to see an admin "who gets it" hand in the tools. On the bright side, our community is together as never before. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Ceoil: - community is together as never before - have we never done better than roughly 75% : 25%? starship.paint (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Polls are one thing, I'm thinking a deeper unity is emerging. Certainly broader understanding of the workload good admins have to carry, and the scarcity of talent like that which reeks from highly active syops like Fram. Will it seep into RFA? Dunno. Hope so. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Starship.paint, nowhere did Opabinia say that any evidence whatsoever was provided to ArbCom or that any plausible rationale whatsoever was given for Fram's sudden unapeallable ban and desysop or for WMF's refusal to undo it. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    You are right, Softlavender. Personally I'm waiting for ArbCom to release a statement on the matter. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for your service. I will miss you. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Just curious, has Boing! said Zebedee only resigned the sysop bit, or have they decided to stop editing here completely? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  That is a question you should ask them on their talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the statements of my two colleagues above, I find myself agreeing with almost every word they said. The way things look at the moment (I sincerely hope that changes in the future), I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on this project. Please remove my sysop bit. —Kusma (t·c) 10:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate but understandable. Thank you for your service.  Done –xeno^talk 11:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action, much faster than my response... —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

....I will refrain from elaborating, but unless we can see in the clear, please remove my bit. Lectonar (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done best regards and thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my admin rights. ~ GB fan 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

On 26 February 2007, the enwiki community granted admin right to Fram (talk · contribs). There has never been a resolution of the enwiki community, nor of its Arbitration Committee, to remove those rights. On 10 June 2019, they were removed unilaterally by WMFOffice (talk · contribs). That action has not, in accordance with prior precedent, been referred to the enwiki ArbCom. There has been no public statement, despite two weeks having been elapsed, from WMF to state that ArbCom is for some reason unsuited to reviewing Fram's status as an administrator. There has not even been a clear statement that private off-wiki actions by Fram were considered by WMF as part of their decision to enact sanctions. In the intervening period, enwiki ArbCom has not found that Fram's onwiki actions justify removal of admin permissions. Nor has a community process reached that view and endorsed WMF's actions. It seems to me that we have now been more than patient with WMF, the Board and (for that matter) with ArbCom, to which I self-referred my earlier actions on 13 June 2019. Fram has asked two very simple questions. They are questions that as a matter of basic fairness ought to have been answered regardless of whether anyone believes Fram to be guilty or innocent of (as yet unspecified) misconduct. They have not been answered. Those questions, and those raised by members of this community, have been met with obfuscation and delay. In light of the absence of any serious attempt by WMF to engage in discussions with the enwiki community since this incident occurred, I have therefore restored Fram's community-granted admin rights. WJBscribe (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You should resign, and you should do so immediately. You have demonstrated a repeated willingness to violate the Terms of Use, exceed the mandate that the community has granted you as a bureaucrat, and inflame conflict on-wiki based on your own personal opinions. I have absolutely zero confidence in your impartiality as it pertains to anything. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And I think you should regain your admin tools and your ArbCom seat, and resume acting in both roles because I value differences of opinion and believe this community is richer for them. But there we go, we clearly have different views about things... WJBscribe (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You have done an excellent job in cultivating an unsafe environment in which I do not feel able to participate administratively. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe, the issue is that you've made it so that no one who has a different view than you can act, however. If ArbCom de-crats you, they alienate at least half the community. If they do nothing, they alienate another substantial portion of the community. If the WMF de-crats you, there's even more outrange at them and they risk destroying the flagship project. If they do nothing, they risk that any action they take on any wiki that is legitimate is undone with impunity. Any local bureaucrat that reverse you is wheel warring, even if they disagree with your choice. Literally any action taken that is not in line with your views would destroy the community.

I have been critical of the way the WMF has handled this: I do not think project specific bans make any sense and think they need to explain things better, but what you have done is the single thing in this entire saga that most threatens the cohesiveness of the en.wiki community. I'm begging you, please consider reversing yourself here and waiting until the ban expires to do anything. Fram cannot use his tools or he will be globally locked, so it is just a symbolic gesture, but one that threatens tearing us apart even more than we already are. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with you as to the danger of this action. But even if I did, I don't think it would deter me. Fram has a right to fair process, and hasn't had it. WJBscribe (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Then would you be willing to state that you have no issue with any bureaucrat who disagrees with your action reversing it, and that you would not consider it wheel warring? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. WJBscribe (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It may not be wheel warring, but it would nevertheless be a desysopping outside of the procedure for removing administrator rights, in a clearly non-emergency situation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On any other project, WJBscribe would have been emergency de-crated by stewards. I think him saying that he's fine with a reversal without it being wheel warring is good enough for any crat who does not consider his action legitimate to act. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. But if a wheel war starts, stewards would definitely react, even on en.wikipedia. --Rschen7754 01:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they would have. Maybe not on de.wiki, but the number of projects where a crat can undo multiple office actions with impunity can be counted on one hand. This isn't some new policy like the local bans. The office has had the ability to remove permissions from local projects for ages, and they have. We're in unprecedented territory here in that a 'crat on a large wiki has undone two office removals of permissions, and no one knows what to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented - Odder on Commons, 2014 and then again in 2015 following the global ban of Russavia. In the first case, stewards performed the removals, but did not continue wheel warring. After that WMF basically was tasked with doing all their removals themselves - I don't know if it was formally decided, but stewards generally didn't want to get involved in a war between WMF and the crats. (But if it turns into crat versus crat, that's a different story). --Rschen7754 01:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @WJBscribe: As your action enables this restricted person to perform privileged activity that is not publicly logged (for example the ability to access deleted revisions), I don't think this is a good idea right now, and further escalates the conflict. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think we've waited more than enough time for an explanation as to why this person is "restricted" (as you euphemistically put it) or, at the very least, for an explanation as to why we can't be told WMF's reasons. WJBscribe (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reverse this now WJBscribe. This is not the hill you want to die on. You’re making a big mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@WJBScribe: I don't understand. What are you trying to accomplish with this action? --Rschen7754 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve dug through the history. The ban is absolutely justified. Please reverse yourself now. We will sort out WMF’s bungled process and communication in due course. There is no deadline. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Please provide the diffs that justify the ban because the rest of us haven’t found anything. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I won’t identify the victim. If you look deep enough you can figure out what happened. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look even deeper you may realise that you only think that you've identified what happened, not that you actually have. Eric Corbett 00:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unless you know some information that the rest of the community doesn't, then all this means is that you have a lower standard for what merits a siteban than the rest of the community. Whether Fram should be banned, or equivalently whether the community thinks his ban is justified, is a matter for consensus, and consensus has shown that it isn't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud WJBScribe's actions from way back in the peanut gallery. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Seconded peanut gallery support. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Things just get curiouser and curiouser. It would seem that Arb has had plenty of opportunity to pipe in and opine on the desysop, and they don't seem to have done much at all publicly. Not sure this was the right move or not, but I respect it as it makes it harder for the WMF and Arb to just kick this can down the road hoping we lose interest in the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  One possible endgame is that Fram resumes editing and Jan decides not to follow through on the threat of global lock so as not to inflame the situation further. Haukur (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's a tactic that's worked well for them in the past. But everything comes to an end, one day even Wikipedia itself. Is this the day? Who knows. Eric Corbett 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  They still have lots of money to spend, so it probably won't be today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Good. I have no idea if Fram should be desysopped or not, but if so, it should be done locally, or (in an emergency) an explanation should be provided to ArbCom in less than, say, 10 days. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Were the ban already rescinded, I would be on board with this. But as it is, Fram remains banned on en.wp, and there is a consensus that a banned user should not have admin tools, primarily because of viewdeleted (which a block/ban doesn't prevent). I strongly urge WJBScribe to retract this action and think a bit more about this. We're already complaining about Jan escalating things with content-free bullshit; please don't stoop to his level of "discourse". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Were any other 'crats aware that this one was going resysop? cygnis insignis 01:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cygnis insignis: hard to say, but this is the normal venue where resysop discussions are held and what you see above is the first notification I saw. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • • Would insist they follow the 24 hour wait period for resysop which is not an emergency (Dssysop maybe) and other crats should be consulted in future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Maxim and Primefac: I'm a little confused about this "joint statement", was it prepared/discussed off-wiki or did you both reach the same conclusion at the same time and Maxim simply signed their name to it? –xeno^talk 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  We discussed the issue on IRC. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  It would have been better to keep things onwiki. –xeno^talk 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've split the recall request to its own section for ease of processing. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @WJBscribe: The first 'crat action you took was questionable at best and, thankfully, no one needed to bring it to ArbCom because you brought it there yourself. You escalated this, again, for no reason. You have the option to recall yourself on your userpage and I'd like to take you up on that now. — Moe Epsilon 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit moot since this will surely be added to the current Arb case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

    I've been reading the post as they come in, and like Floquenbeam I have no idea on the background of this issue, but I agree with him. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

    Having a request for arbitration active that is likely to result in being closed in a motion doesn't have to stop a recall from happening. (unless WJBscribe is desysopped in that motion of course) — Moe Epsilon 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

    I second that call for recall, both for bureaucrat and admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

    I've also went ahead and notified the Foundation this action was taken. So, we'll see. — Moe Epsilon 01:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think an individual who takes a step that is all but guaranteed to divide an already divided community even more should retain access to the bureaucrat permission, and would encourage WJBscribe to resign rather than put the community through a divisive recall RfB. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree to him resigning, but I'll believe it when I see it. — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• As TonyBallioni implies above, bureaucrats are supposed to be above reproach. What WJBscribe has done here is incompatible with the high degree of trust which the community has placed in the position, both as a specific action (granting a user banned for harassment access to deleted information) and as a general one (acting to further inflame an already-divisive community dispute). WJBscribe, please do the honorable thing and resign. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree. I see no grounds for WJBscribe not to be a bureaucrat. The WMF has explicitly stated that The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram, and the community has clearly indicated at WP:FRAM that it views that office action as wrong. This, to me, is no different from WJBscribe's recratting of Floquenbeam or Floquenbeam's unblock of Fram. None of those actions launched a serious recall movement, demonstrating the lack of any valid reason for a recall here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Pppery: that was before we had an ongoing arbcom case about this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  The difference is he gave the technical access to deleted/non-public information to a account banned for misconduct that WJBscribe himself doesn't have all the facts of (regardless of the unblock by Floq). If that doesn't strike you as serious misconduct, especially while not discussing a resysop on-wiki before pulling the trigger (unless I missed it somewhere), then I don't see what is. — Moe Epsilon 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The community still trusts Fram with access to that deleted information, though. My understanding of the point WJBscribe was making, in both of his resysoppings, was that he does not believe the office to have the social power to desysop users (apologies if I am misunderstanding, here) and is willing to use his bureaucrat access to revert actions he feels to be outside procedure. In that regard, both actions were the same. And no, in this case I don't view enforcing clear, policy-backed community consensus and procedure as serious misconduct that merits removal of rights. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's a betrayal of trust because his actions actively harmed the community he claims to be trying to protect. His actions here are going to be significantly more divisive than anything the WMF did. If you want the chapter and verse, here is the quote from the applicable policy In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes places and is closed. There was no community discussion on this. It was a unilateral action that was guaranteed to inflame passions more, and there are calls for a recall here, which would be very divisive. He should not put the community through that. Like Kiril said, the honourable thing to do is resign. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I do. Bureaucrats were given their role to determine consensus for practices such as RFA because they were thought to have good judgement, not to unilaterally go against Office because they took too long to reply and potentially damage Wikipedia. Bureaucrats don't have the authority to go above the Foundation, as evidenced by the fact Fram is still banned, regardless of his unblock and his tools being returned. If he edits, his account will be globally locked, as Jan said. The false consensus at WP:FRAM doesn't really change that. — Moe Epsilon 02:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Please point to why this is a false consensus. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well consensus there cannot overturn an office action. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  For two reasons: 1) Because you're forming "consensus" based on a lack of information. The fact the Foundation has office hours and privacy to consider prohibits them from fully explaining actions they have taken. And let me be clear, the lack of information goes both ways, whether you support the ban or not, because without knowing the full details you're just guessing. 2) Any consensus formed there can't actually overturn the Office action of him being banned. You can undo all their actions, re-sysop Fram and block the Foundation accounts for the fun of it, but they can bypass that and "consensus" doesn't change it. — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  No one's asking for a "full explanation". No one's asking for the Foundation to respond 24/7. No one's asking for confidential information. These are straw men you're throwing up. We're just asking for a simple confirmation that the ban was not outright corrupt, as it is alleged to be. If the Foundation cannot deny corruption, that raises red flags. Also, the consensus there is overwhelming, and is prominently advertised to the community, and is being left open for an extended period—it ticks all the boxes of a community-level discussion as opposed to a local discussion. It's disingenuous to call it a "false consensus". Just because Foundation staff don't have to respect our community's consensus doesn't render it nonexistent. And, just because you disagree with the prevailing view doesn't mean you get to supervote it as "false". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, you might not be asking for confidential information but some people are asking for more information than others, and it severely limits the resources of the WMF to try and reply to everyone as a collective. At any rate, it's not my 'vote' to determine it false, it just is. I've outlined why consensus is disingenuous there (a lack of information and a lack of ability to enforce anything realistically) and neither of which is something relevant to my opinion on the case. — Moe Epsilon 07:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss at how one of the bureacrats I used to hold in such high esteem would engage in such reckless actions. I understand that emotions are high, but I expect our bureacrats to be calm and cautious, rather than jumping in head first. I don't really want more people to resign, I'm just disappointed. Legoktm (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, this was what prompted me to comment on the situation to begin with. If you want to fall on your sword, then fall on your sword and resign. Otherwise you're just making things worse, in a situation where, if we're being completely honest, most of the community is either unaware or doesn't care otherwise, and is happily carrying about their business without the theatrics. GMG^talk 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would like to mirror what most are saying here. Perhaps it is time to hand in your tools and step down. I also think it was inappropriate to edit past the lock and add your personal views of the ban on their user page like you did here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Is there anyone close enough to WJBscribe to ensure that his account has not been compromised? While the resysop of Floq was much bolder than I would expect from him - in all my interactions and from what I've ever seen of WJBscribe - this is beyond what he would do even in extreme circumstances. I could follow the reasoning of handing in ones tools, and many have, but this just seems very Un-WJBscribe like. — Ched :  ?  — 02:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support holding a recall vote I've been following some of the discussions and while the resysoping of Floquenbeam was understandable the latest resysoping seems unreasonable at this point in time. From what I've followed in the earlier discussion that there has already been concerns with Fram's action as an administrator. As pointed out above if the allegations of harassment are true this action gave privileged access to someone that should have it. While I admire the self-reporting, this is not the relative haste I expect from a bureaucrat. And yes 13 or so days is hasty given the volume of discussions still going on. Given the recent votes for ArbCom towards accepting for a motion it should have at the very least waited for the outcome regardless of what the likely outcome might or might now be. Further having resysoped Floquenbeam, it would have been better if this had been a another bureaucrat or even a bureaucrat discussion. If the intent was represent that community the actions should be carried out by multiple parties. PaleAqua (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural Note: Please keep in mind, there is no official process for a Bureaucrat Recall discussion, nor is there policy support to enforce results. Let's please give @WJBscribe: time to respond to this request, and help determine the best venue to host it if he chooses to participate. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I am left Speechless echo what Ched says and did not expect from WJBscribe .He has been one of the highest regarded crats in the Project for years.Sadly this is clearly violates WP:INVOLVED as a Arbcom case is ongoing and further he should have consulted the other crats policy is clear In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes places and is closed. and before doing anything like this.This is not an emergency no resysop is and hence we have 24 hour wait period.I do agree with Kirill Lokshin and all above this is a very delicate period for the project and this only can inflame an already-divisive community dispute particurly through unilateral actions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've largely stayed out of all this, but WJBscribe's actions frighten me. Most of what's happening at WP:FRAM is mob rule. I'm ok with people expressing their opinions there, but it gets scary when people start declaring that this represents community consensus, and acting on it. WJBscribe, if you disagree with what WMF did, that's fine. You have the right to speak out against it. But, don't go using the tools that have been entrusted to you to enforce your opinion. Even more so than admins, crats are entrusted with great power, and I expect them to wield that power with deliberation and care. I don't want activist crats. You no longer have my trust. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support User:WJBscribe voluntarily initiating, as per User:WJBscribe#Recall, a test of the confidence of a simple majority of the community for his continuing to hold the Bureaucrat privilege. I personally will support him for his considered political action that did not break anything, but it is obviously contentious. ArbCom may well consider the same question, but ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort, the seven-day recall RfB test result should be on the table before they decide on actions. WJBscribe should do this promptly, so that the ArbCom case is not delayed by waiting for it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  Someone above wrote:

  If ArbCom de-crats you, they alienate at least half the community. If they do nothing, they alienate another substantial portion of the community. If the WMF de-crats you, there's even more outrange at them and they risk destroying the flagship project. If they do nothing, they risk that any action they take on any wiki that is legitimate is undone with impunity. Any local bureaucrat that reverse you is wheel warring, even if they disagree with your choice. Literally any action taken that is not in line with your views would destroy the community.

  
  and they are right. This difficult situation is rescued by something between this voluntary test of confidence and a resignation. The voluntary test of confidence is most consistent with the position that he considers his action to have been the right thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the imaginary recall process, and damn this navel gazing. ——SerialNumber54129 05:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per SN. ∯WBG^converse 05:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• This might be reasonable if WJB refused to be accountable for his action, but he preemptively acknowledged the controversy of what he did, and freely opened himself up for review and any consequences when he self-reported to Arbcom. The WMF declined taking action against him, though Arbcom is also on it. There is also already a community discussion in place, in which the consensus overwhelmingly supports him. So attempting to make an extraordinary argumentum ad populum desysop attempt in this context seems like a disingenuous attempt to punish by a quaternary method. He should not be morally obliged to bow to this dubious request, just because a user states the obvious fact that he was "not allowed to do that". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose recall - WJBscribe should be blocked Govindaharihari (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Govindaharihari: Please run an RfA so we can get a sense of the community's view on your judgment as to who should be blocked. I'll even nominate you. Serious offer! If you pass, you'll even get to block WJB yourself! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• +1. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• +2. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a extremely serious violation of the tools by WJBscribe and your comedy comments regarding it here do nothing to change my position. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Govindaharihari, I think you have been here long enough to understand that blocks are preventative, not punitive. WJBscribe has already said they will accept the reversal of their action by another crat, and that has already happened. So there is nothing to prevent now, is there? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi Boing! said Zebedee. I knew he had been reverted, sadly required by his actions. As regards your comment, well, yes there is in my opinion, this user is now making his second controversial use of his tools and there is no evidence to suggest he won't make a third with them. Govindaharihari (talk)
        • Then support the removal of the tools by all means, but a block is not needed to prevent misuse of crat tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Sadly, yes, this situation and the actions are or do make me sad, he has accepted his actions and requested removal, removing the need to block. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)That, and blocking WJBscribe for some (unspecified) duration but without a recall process would presumably mean WJBscribe keeps the admin flag. I'm not sure that's what Govindaharihari wants. I'm not even sure Govindaharihari really knows what they want. This kind of thoughtless "lock him up and throw away the key" nonsense is something I associate more with the comments section of a Daily Mail article than Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose recall- Clearly, WJBscribe is acting according to community consensus. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • I know exactly what I want. I want this edit warring of our advanced users to stop and for discussion to prevail. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reyk, could you point to the community consensus to resysop Fram? AFAIK, the vast majority of discussion has been on the block, and no large discussion has occurred specifically on the question of resysopping? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think community consensus is clear that the WMF should not have done a damn thing to Fram. It's academic anyway because, resysopped or not, Fram still can't actually do anything and WJBscribe has resigned as an admin in the meantime. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support recall or immediate re-desysop of Fram. Either is fine with me. Seriously, Will, this was reckless and irresponsible, what the community needs now is diplomacy, not a bunch of cowboy sysops. So just because the WMF goes in gung-ho and does something controversial out of the blue that upsets people, it's okay for us to respond in kind? No, I thought we were better than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, Maxim has already re-desyopped Fram. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose recall. Under more normal circumstances, I would have been at least somewhat critical. But we live through a constitutional crisis. WMF is stonewalling, the board seems to be deadlocked, and even Jimbo has effectively vanished. The resysop is one of the milder forms of reminding the foundation that they need but do not have (to quote Jefferson) "the consent of the governed". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support recall I agree with Ritchie that we don't need cowboys here. Crats have more advanced permissions than admins, and so are expected to act with caution, and not take reckless individual actions that further divides the community (as Tony has said above). Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose recall A few of us are working on this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose recall I am aware this is now moot, given WJB's resignation below, but feel I should state my view for the record. --NSH001 (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose recall Congratulations supporters of this motion, you got rid of him, someone whose primary flaw was caring too much about fairness. Now that you've successfully deprived the project of a competent 'crat, will you actually wake up and aim to address the underlying reason for all this mess? I think not, and I severely doubt that WJB will be the last 'crat who resigns as part of this saga. Promethean (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I note that my action has been overturned by other bureaucrats. In light of that action in the context of recent WMF actions (and failure to engage regarding them), and irrespective of the "recall" discussion started above, I neither wish to continue as an administrator or bureaucrat of this project, nor is it tenable for me to do so. Please remove my admin rights locally. I will post a request in relation to the bureaucrat rights on meta. I'm done here. WJBscribe (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Promethean (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe - You may be dying on a hill without a cause here. Please refer yourself to the developments at FRAMBAN before making any further hasty decisions. Yes, the WMF has failed miserably here and it's causing grievous problems. No, you shouldn't have reinstated Fram's tools. That said, even Doc James is opposing your recall. Please, patience. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Will, you're one of the best, but I completely understand why you're doing this. Congratulations to WMF, another victim. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stay; we are already losing admins at a record rate. James (who, FWIW has opposed the recall) and the BoT is already looking into the issue and I have significant faith that this kerfuffle will be resolved, soon-enough. ∯WBG^converse 08:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Echo the general sentiments above: Would much rather he didn't resign, he's had such a positive effect on the project over many years, and was one of the few who stuck up for what was right and fair as opposed to what was popular. Promethean (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I won't be the one to pull this trigger given my other roles, but I do think it was the right thing to do. I am sorry to see you go WJBscribe, you've been an individual who I have looked up to throughout my time on Wikipedia. Worm^TT(talk) 08:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the unsubstantiated speculation being posted by Jehochman (that the ban is based on substantive evidence of harassment by Fram), 'crats acting in a solo, apparent renegade fashion, is not something wholly supported by the community. A cratchat would have unified the 'crat position with minority views fully expressed. In fact, if the Fran ban is ever fully justified it leaves egg on the face of those who have acted impetuously. A discussion concerning clouds is needed. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can @AllCrats please ignore WJBScribes request for the next ~seven days? Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 09:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, what? No one overturned your resysop of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). What is this even about? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Swarm, Look above, WJBscribe resysop'd Fram. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy that, thanks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And as I argued further up the page, it's not even that important. Sysop or not, Fram can't actually do anything until the ban expires or is lifted. And when that happens, there is little doubt that they'll get the admin bit back anyway, unless of course the WMF decide they want to start vetoing RfAs. Reyk _YO! 09:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should renominate Fram at RfA in absentia, on the basis that no rationale was actually given for his desysopping. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see this, and to see some users descend to aggressive language, but I won't characterise on it being the right thing to do or not. Suffice it to say that this whole episode is yet another result of the FRAMBAN; it's tearing our community apart, and it's time the powers that be (whoever they are, Doc James) sit up and now start doing some serious talking and open some proper and transparent quadripartite dialog with the WMF, the BoT, Arbcon, and the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm upset by this development and am not sure I trust my judgement on it. As such, I do not feel able to remove WJB's tools. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Will, I'm gutted to see this. I don't edit much these days, but I've been reading up on the case. It's not hyperbole to say that the actions around the FRAMBAN thing have caused significant damage to the community, and in particular the morale of many long term / experienced editors. Take care. I hope to see you back. Pedro :  Chat  09:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• It's impossible to acknowledge WJB's "wrongdoing" without suggesting that Floq should be desysopped. No one has suggested that it was wrong of WJB to reinstate Floq's bit (Floq is equally open to recall, with no objections to their resysopping.) This is all a fabricated crisis of confidence. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Are you only choosing to read those comments that agree with your point of view? I'll give you hint, go have a look at Rob's, mine, and a few others comments on RFAR. -- KTC (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• If I were a Crat, I would not remove the bits, like Dweller has stated above. Sometimes, doing the right thing has consequences, but I was hoping this wasn't one of them. The admin (and now Crat) bleadout due to FramGate keeps adding up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• As regretful as the decision is, I think Will's requests should be respected. I didn't see anyone trying to convince all those who have been de-sysopped to think again, or to delay by a week. I don't see this as any different. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thoughtful point, TRM. There's a significant difference in that with the ongoing Arbcom case, WJB is clearly 'under a cloud'. I do wish we weren't here. But your argument is persuasive and WJB knows policy well enough to know what he's doing. I'll grit my teeth and do this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Done I've removed the sysop flag. Someone will need to rustle up a steward for the crat hat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

They have a mandatory 24 hour cooling off period for self-requests on meta, so that won't happen until tomorrow. If anyone is unduly concerned, I confirm that I won't use the bureaucrat permissions in the meantime. WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

has anyone considered that that might be good for self-requests here as well? (With all due respect WJB, and not to imply that you came to this decision hotheadedly). Thank you for your service. Crazynas ^t 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Crazynas: the primary difference is that if an admin in good standing resigns here they can (typically) just ask for reinstatement, on meta you can not. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case, Dweller has already noted it as being under a cloud. While I haven't looked into the details of the case, it seems an inescapable observation that there was controversy immediately preceding the request. Samsara 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Once we process it, only way to regain your access via Steward is 'go to another round of RfA/B/whatever'. I once restored without new RfX but that was handling compromised admin account so it is a different story. — regards, Revi 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that majority of wikis even don't have crats on their own. — regards, Revi 14:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

All of this transpired between the time I logged out yesterday and my just now looking back here today. I'm just very, very, very sad. Admittedly, this entire mess was avoidable, because contrary to what is widely being said, no magical deadline has passed, and there is no need for anyone to have decided that now is the time to die on a hill. But I still think that WJBScribe has been a real hero to the en-wiki community (or, if anyone really wants to argue with me, a real hero to me). The amount of time between his action and his resignation has been far short of what would have been needed if there were to have been a thoughtful discussion. He acted too quickly, and the calls here for his de-crat-ing were too much mired in the emotions of the moment. This entire thing has been a series of really fine people allowing themselves to get overly upset over a dismal situation, instead of just taking a much-needed breath to think it over. None of this needed to happen, and I hope that in the near future we will be able to return to happier times. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose recall. Just in case sanity breaks loose at WMF headquarters and/or WJBScribe decides to come back and seek privileges, I think it is worth continuing the 'closed' vote above simply to say that he should not be treated as having resigned 'under a cloud'. The constitutional crisis has brought us to a point where the interpretation of the existing rules is undefined. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There is a Hobbesian thing going on here, where in the absence of clear and fair governance (i.e. the WMF actions) the lives of very good admins has become Nasty, brutish and short. I'm pretty sure clear and appropriate governance will return; and when it does I hope all the good admins and crat(s) who gave up permissions will be welcomed back. It's very sad to see all this incredible volunteer talent going down the tubes. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Except there are many of us who now that WJBscribe has done the honourable thing and bowed out are not going to comment further out of respect for him. I threatened to block a WMF contractor and admin who in my view gravedanced over the Fram thing, and if anyone did the same to WJBscribe, I'd tell them to knock it off just as forcefully. No thread after someone resigns where people are, correctly, thanking him for his service is going to be reflective of community views on his action. I have very strong views on it, which I have only partially discussed here. I'm pretty confident that there are others who are appalled by the way that the WMF has handled the situation who are equally appalled by Will's actions. You won't be hearing their voices here because basic human decency says they shouldn't be raising them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a constitutional crisis and the correct behavior is up for debate, so I don't see why they should not continue. From the Fram case (among many other things) I'd say we have altogether too much "decency" here already. Let the winds of doctrine blow. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-closure note: Stryn removed the crat hat. — regards, Revi 06:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Noting here that 28bytes asked on meta that their bureaucrat flag be removed. See meta:Special:Permalink/19175907#28bytes@enwiki. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nooooooo, not you too. :( Reyk _YO! 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oy. How many more will leave? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. Beginning to wonder how to feel about all this ... sad, ... mad, ... glad, ... indifferent. — Ched :  ?  — 08:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• And DoRD too. ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(Note: DoRD's request was -OS/-CU) . — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is getting to be too much. Please let these resignations be temporary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Best wishes @28bytes: we'll leave the door unlocked for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Glad to see the requests being closed but kept on the page. I know the community hates to see the mass resignations, but there are more on the way. Feeling forced to resign due to the corporatization of the wiki isn't fun. Many of us remember back when this really was a "project", not an unpaid job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Really very sorry to see this. There were some useful clarifications by ArbCom members in the recently declined Jehochman ArbCom Fram case, that ArbCom would not be getting access to all the information regarding the Fram ban (from Joe Roe), and that without such information, ArbCom has nothing further to really add on the specific Fram ban (from Gorilla Warfare), and that ArbCom had not spoken with the WMF since the 19 June, and didn't expect to speak again until 3 July (from Silk Tork). Ultimately, wrongly or rightly, WMF will be taking private office actions regarding civility violations outside of the on-wiki/ArbCom process; I can understand that such a system may be at odds with what various editors believed the system was, and for which they donated their time and service. This affair has seen an extraordinary amount of editing talent depart WP, and only yesterday, the WP CEO has tweeted that this is a "garden variety" drama. Britishfinance (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It appears she also said "When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares." [5] in reference to an article that was critical of the WMF's handling of the aftermath, seemingly undermining the WMF's authority on deciding what is and isn't "civil". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought the Buzzfeed News article was pretty balanced given how complex this affair is; and Katherine may not realize Buzzfeed News is a WP:RSP. She also needs to realise that the WP community is not the Reddit or Tripadvisor community; WP requires a highly-skilled and long-tenured user-base to function. Britishfinance (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Same here. It wasn't fanning flames, it was actual journalism. A few facts were off point, but on the whole it was a fairly disciplined article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

        Yes, and tellingly, even those who are generally supportive of the Fram Ban have commented that the tweet was unhelpful, unfair and a needless attack on a journalist. As I saw it, The article was by-and-large just trying to report the facts, without taking any sides.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Back on topic, really very sorry to see you resign, 28bytes. You are always a calm and fair-minded voice in our discussions. I've not yet seen a rationale for your resignation, but given your most recent contribs, I imagine it's over the entirely unnecessary mess WMF have foisted us with and walked away from, which makes it all the more regrettable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. The silence is defeaning. –xeno^talk 15:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• You did the right thing considering the circumstances. Best wishes, Enigma^msg 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysop request

Thank you to everyone above for your kind words. DannyS712 is correct, I have filed a request on meta to relinquish my bureaucrat and global renamer rights, which I expect they'll do a few hours from now. I'm a bit sad about that, as I enjoyed both of those tasks very much. I am also requesting here to relinquish my administrator rights. I suppose I could technically do it myself, but if there's one thing bureaucrats enjoy, it's clicking buttons, so have at it, 'crats!

There's not much to say that hasn't already been said better by others, so I'll spare everyone my own manifesto except to say there are a lot of good people who edit here, and I will miss working with you all very much. Thank you, best wishes, and take care. 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. It's one button I don't particular enjoy clicking, though. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this, but do not feel able to continue to contribute in the current environment. I had hoped it would be resolved satisfactorily by now, but this is looking increasingly unlikely. Please accept my resignation and remove the admin tools. Thank you and best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice that IAdmin flag was also removed per criteria #4. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wish MSGJ the very best, and the same for all of the other admins and 'crats who have done the same in recent weeks, regardless of the opinions they hold on our current brouhaha. I'm now going to point out something worrisome. We've lost 2 of 14 interface admins in two weeks, and one of the remaining IAs is actually a bot. This is potentially problematic. Are there any other viable candidates in the pipeline? Risker (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Risker: we don't get a lot of interface change requests (see the history on User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable) and that bot took care of the most frequent change (empowering .json updates to geonotices to all admins). But certainly something that any of our admins could help with. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, probably part of the reason is that the people most likely to want changes are admins, and they'll just not bother. There are a couple of pages that I've known need to be revised/updated; I would have done them myself before IA, since this is clean-up, but to be honest not even I can be bothered having to make edit requests. Risker (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Risker: do you want IAdmin flag? It is a 48 hour hold time to process, we can start the clock. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Let's hold off on that for now, but thanks for the thought. Perhaps when things stabilize in the future, if I'm still around. Risker (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no admin bit to remove having never felt the need to run, but had I the tools I would be joining those above. I've had little interaction outside the mundane with any admin over the years but I see names here that I have some respect for in light of their administrative (and in some cases) bureaucratic contributions. Regardless of any opinion on the Framgate saga, the integrity demonstrated by them is worthy of respect and support. ClubOranje^T 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ClubOranje, thank you for expressing your sympathy. I've renamed the section so other bureaucrats don't start trying to find your admin bit and get confused. Maxim_(talk) 13:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and I feel the same way. I am in mourning sad for the loss of Wikipedia. Enigma^msg 15:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"In mourning for the loss of Wikipedia" Good grief. Ever lost a member of your family? Leaky caldron (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am resigning my adminship to protest the contempt the WMF organization and CEO have for WP's volunteers. I acknowledge I'm doing it under a cloud, so regardless of the result of the ArbCom case, I cannot ask for it back later. BN is probably not the place for a longer manifesto, so I'll post that at my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, with regret. Thank you for your administrative contributions. Maxim_(talk) 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

How many editors do I speak for with the comment OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!...?  :( ——SerialNumber54129 16:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Me. :( Thank you for your service, Floq. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. You can count on my support at any future RfA. Reyk _YO! 16:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cloud my ass.- MrX 🖋 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• +1. There was one controversial action that commanded broad support among the community. That doesn't create a cloud. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah we know you’re not resigning to avoid scrutiny Floq, so I don’t think there’s any cloud. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Handing in my bit. If anyone is interested, a short statement is on my talk page. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for all your prior service, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oh dear, not this one. This is getting crazy(ier) now. Is there any precedent for such losses of editing talent on WP? Britishfinance (talk)

Speaking as someone who opposed your adminship, but later saw that you indeed could be trusted with the bit, I have to say this sucks.- MrX 🖋 20:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of support. This is a damned sad day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my admin rights, have already asked for other perms removed at meta. For the same reasons as everybody else, but in particular Katherine Maher's utter lack of care or concern for the community she is supposed to be serving. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Much respect for everything you've done here - you've been one I've learned greatly from. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, with regret. Thank you for your administrative contributions. Maxim_(talk) 20:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Are you seeing this shit ? This is getting scary. At least respond somewhere. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I waited this long because I thought the foundation would see the light and make some move to repair the situation, when instead the CEO is taking a break from jet setting to attack journalists who tried to write about this debacle. I still believe in the project, but the foundation, not so much, and I don't want to work at their pleasure in the climate of fear and discord they have created here and apparently don't care about. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Another in a painful series of gut punches. I hope that someone starts steering the ship before it hits the iceberg.- MrX 🖋 20:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We've hit the iceberg, I'm counting life rafts now. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And who's there rearranging the deckchairs???? Maher et al. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• These resignations are devastating for our community. I am beyond saddened to see so many editors retiring, resigning, and leaving. If Wikipedia was ever going to have its own version of "Black Friday", today must surely be among the contenders. Mkdw ^talk 21:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That goes for me, too. So as not to keep repeating myself, please let me offer my admiration to every person who has resigned on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

^^^^^^ What he said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thirded.- MrX 🖋 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Gosh. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my admin bit. I've said why on my user page. I think it's best I just go away for a while lest I say or do something rash. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I sincerely hope we can all get back to how things were someday. I respect your decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, with regret. Thank you for your contributions. Maxim_(talk) 23:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the bit from my account. Thanks. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. :( I wish you the best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A very sad day for the project. Thank you for your service and help. This is a true loss that will be felt. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's real sad. Hope you take the bits back someday. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• DoRD, thank you so much for all your work, and for all the help you've given me. For those of you who don't know, DoRD is a fucking wizard, and a fine human being to boot--they are one of three CUs I could always count on for help. DoRD, I am going to miss you very much. :( Drmies (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been less active in pushing the mop around than most, so I won't be missed much. Nevertheless, mutatis mutandis, I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's comments. Deor (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Deor, thank you so much for your service. You were one of my role models, and I also thank you for your long service. Take care. I'm sorry Boing's comments apply to you as well, and I will certainly miss you. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not using it and have blown hot and cold about having the bit for so long that it's no big deal to give it up at a time when the WMF are sticking two fingers up To the community here. I simply don't want to use my free time helping to run a website so they can gather more donations for "stuff". Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the bot flag from User:BU RoBOT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Are anonymous Questions allowed in WP:RFA ? As per additional Q4, via email.Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it means the candidate and nom wanted to explain it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Tony said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This really looks like it is actually a direct question from Ritchie333 to the nominee and should be in Ritchie333's numbered question section and count towards their 2 question limit, not in the 'standard questions' section. Ritchie333, can you confirm? This sort of pre-work could have just been put in to the acceptance statement as well and avoided this situation. So long as Ritchie333 doesn't want to start adding multiple more questions I don't think in this specific case there is any worry. If this is actually Ritchie333 proxying questions for other editors, that would be a different situation to explore. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I've just gone ahead and moved it into the "additional questions" section and marked it as a question from Ritchie responded via email. It'll just save drama. Nominators coaching candidates is not unusual at all, it's to be expected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Voice of Clam (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Please remove my bit. I've left a statement on my user page. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I have had this window open for days, while completely stopping my on-wiki contributions that support or maintain mainspace material ('strike', including the anti-spam effort through the bot I control, XLinkBot). User:Jimbo Wales promised to come with a statement soon (with excuses), but that is now more than 2 days ago. User:Katherine (WMF) finally engaged but has not come with a statement either. As was clear from her initial contributions, she had no clue what was going on and how serious the situation is. It is not what I expect from a CEO of an organisation I have happily volunteered for for so many years. I can understand that she does not know what happens on a day-to-day basis, but not knowing it 3 weeks after all hell breaks loose (which means that none of your personnel informed you of anything) is too much. I can fully agree that there are more than sufficient off-wiki complaints, supported by on-wiki evidence, but the way this is implemented is tearing the community apart. More than three weeks!

And now the board (of all people, not Jan, not Katherine), through User:Doc James, user:Schiste and User:Pundit come with an utterly empty shell statement. Most of the message is something that should have done years ago (training, consultation, '[t]his is an issue we need to solve together', 'This could include current and upcoming initiatives', 'we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities'), and there is NO realization that the loss of trust is not just in the WMF, but also in the ArbCom now of handling this case. And then the utterly condescending remark that these admin bit are not/will not be considered 'under a cloud', it is NOT your call in the first place, it is hardly ArbCom's call (with some exceptions), it is the community's call.  You have lost it.

Please remove my bit. When (if?) this resolves I will consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do it by themselves in the meantime. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra The Board statement is a result of collective work, and is basically only what everyone unanimously agreed upon. The ones who signed are not the only ones who approved it, it is a joint statement. I believe you are right that a lot of what is proposed definitely should have been done years ago. True. Regarding the loss of trust, I believe we currently basically do not have other institutions - although a discussion about governance and some other ways may be useful. Pundit|utter 06:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit: I do NOT mean that statement to you, User:Doc James and user:Schiste in any way personal (hence the 'through'). I fully understand it is a statement from the board within the limits of what the board wants to disclose/state. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick thought that I don't think the fact that some things should have been done years ago is a valid criticism of trying to do them now, given that now is the soonest we have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: WMF has warned Fram for the first time over a year ago. They have pushed through changes in the ToU without community consultation. The soonest they had was ... over a year ago (possibly earlier, I don't think that they started with the Fram warning to change their minds)? They decided to play hardball and now, 3 weeks post facto, they come with other solutions they will take in the future? This was broken a long time ago, and it only comes to light now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that, but going back a year (or more) in time and not doing those things is obviously not an option now. Trying to fix it now is the only current option. If you think it's too late to do anything now, that's fair enough. But I don't think they could have done any more now than the current board plan (together with Jimmy's clarifications), and I'm a lot more optimistic than I was yesterday. Anyway, I'll stop preaching now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

They are not trying to fix it now ... I am more optimistic as well, but by far not as optimistic as I hoped the messages would be. As I stated above, I have had this window open for almost a week now. The suggestion of having ArbCom 'looking at it' is to cry about. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, they have handed it over to ArbCom to make the final decision! Jimmy has made that absolutely clear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh .. where is that statement from Jimmy? Do you mean: "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee"? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean these statements - [6], [7], [8], [9]. For example, "To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide", "T&S is not going to be making any more moves like this without the agreement of the community. This is very firm from the board, and I will personally act, upon the advice of ArbCom, and with the backing of ArbCom and the community, if necessary", "To be fully clear (I'm saying this multiple times in the thread) this is not asking ArbCOm for an advisory opinion. It is a recognition that the traditional rights of the ArbCom remain valid. ArbCom has the authority to review this ban", and "To be clear, if ArbCom determines the length of 0 days, resysop, etc., I will fully support it. T&S would have to defy the board, me personally, ArbCom, and the assembled group of good people in the community. That's not going to happen". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not see those yet. They were posted after I posted this request. Nonetheless .. I am not convinced that ArbCom can do anything here that is helpful. If so .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, I find User:Katherine (WMF)'s statement just as empty as the statement from the board. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Gadfium (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Two weeks ago, I resigned, saying I have been dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise. I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on en.wikipedia in this situation. With the statement from the board of trustees, Katherine talking to the community, and Arbcom confirming that they have sufficient information from T&S to open a case, I believe the situation has significantly changed. Please restore my administratorship. I realise there will be a 24-hour hold. More information on my reconsideration is at User talk:Gadfium#On the "constitutional crisis".-gadfium 04:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back @Gadfium:, yes there is a standard 24 hour hold for commentary; I don't see any barriers to restoration at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!-gadfium 05:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am here to bring to your attention that there are multiple opposition votes on current RfAs simply due to the currently escalated political situation between our community and the Wikimedia Foundation. As these RfAs are supposed to be about the candidates' qualifications (or lack of) for the bit rather than our political issues, I would like to politely ask that these oppose votes be struck from the active count as an invalid reason for opposition. Thank you, Noah^Talk 00:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

'Crats know how to take these into account when they are assessing consensus. Striking usually occurs when there is a sockpuppet or clear violation of NPA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah, As it is right now they aren't making much of an impact on the success rate anyhow. I think it starts to become more of an issue for the 'crats when the scores drop in/or below the discretionary range. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. If any of us are still in post when it comes time to close the noms, we'll be sure to take it into account. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "I don't want the WMF to have replacement admins" is not a valid argument, but "I don't trust a person who wants to become an admin in the current situation" is completely cromulent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia in its current form vanishes, that will mean there is one less place in this universe where writing "is completely cromulent" can fittingly appear, & not be considered an act of snobbishness. :::sigh::: -- llywrch (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, no good answers here. On the one hand, opposing for reasons not directly related to the candidate is a bit unfair. On the other hand, saying we don't want any more admins until the Fram situation is resolved is a legitimate political opinion and should not be forbidden. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I probably wouldn't have !voted had it not been for recent events, so although I completely disagree with those who oppose purely because of Framgate, my supports should probably have equal weight. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting a moratorium, or worse still giving an Oppose, due to "current circumstances" overlooks that fact that less than 0.1% of active editors are participating in the nonsense. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree with DeltaQuad and Dweller; these can be evaluated at the time of closure. –xeno^talk 11:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with the other 'crats who have commented. I do not believe it is appropriate to strike or remove the opposes. If there is enough off-topic discussion to disrupt the RFA, it will become appropriate to move the discussion (but not the initial votes) to another page. In my role as a 'crat, I am here to follow the process. Along with the other 'crats, I will interpret the results after the RFA closes. The 'crats have a long history of assigning little significance to votes that are made to prove a point unrelated to the candidate's suitablity as an administrator. UninvitedCompany 16:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Questioning the judgment of a candidate who chose to run during a time of constitutional crisis is reasonable. The opposes should not be struck, and IMO they should be evaluated as expressing a valid concern. Feedback is a gift, even when it smarts. --valereee (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  And that is another reason why I think you'll be a great admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right that they'll make a great admin, @Boing! said Zebedee:, no doubt about that. I'll remain neutral on the validity of the Fram-related opposes myself, because on the one hand I do find them a bit unkind to the individuals, and I still think the WP project has massive net positives, which is why I don't intend to resign the tools myself. But I ceratinly do respect people's opinion (including your own) that for their beliefs, they do not wish to work for the WMF or enable the environment by replacing the admins that have been lost at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I resigned on 28 June due to the crisis at the time. I am pleased it seems to be resolving and am willing to serve again, after the customary 24-hour hold. Jonathunder (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Should be good to go after the standard hold. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• General comment, not directed at Jonathunder specifically, but if you've resigned your tools in protest, requesting them back a week later, while the coals are still hot, and the situation has not been resolved, with nothing but the most cursory possible concessions from the Foundation offered, that's just silly. Acting like your high ideological demands have been satisfied after a few days and no hard results, that just makes you look petty. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's imho a question whether you trust the WMF and ArbCom to resolve this or not. But being optimistic about the process going forward does not make someone petty, it just means they do not share your (pessimistic) assessment of the Foundation's concessions. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm with SoWhy here, and I very much reject the suggestion that was has happened constitutes "the most cursory possible concessions." But this isn't really the place for such arguments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Swarm, I've agreed with almost everything you've said on the issue, but, here, I have to respectfully disagree. A volunteer editor doesn't operate under someone else's assessment of when the environment is amenable to what level of contribution from them. Your comments against Jonathunder goes against the fundamental maxim of assuming good faith, to my inexperienced eyes at least. I wish you'd reconsider. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome back :) I am not at that point (requesting the tools back) yet, but it is quite possible that our protest resignations have already achieved everything they could achieve. Thank you for having joined the protest! —Kusma (t·c) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• +1 (welcome and all :))....I am still sitting on the fence too, but I am rather hopeful we are (back) on the right track. Lectonar (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Just want to add my agreement that I too think things are moving in the right direction. Like Lectonar I am still waiting a bit, but recent events have left me cautiously optimistic. We have had a very unpleasant family fight. Let's hope that we have moved past the yelling and smashed crockery and are now at the "let's talk this over rationally" stage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins can ask to be desysopped for some larger principle or for no particular reason at all. So, as long as the tools were not relinquished under a cloud, they can ask for them back whenever they decide the time is right. It's a personal decision and I'm hoping all of the recent former admins feel welcome to be resysopped if and whenever they choose to ask for the tools back (as long as it is within the standard time limits). You are all needed and wanted! My 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

An RFC is ongoing to advise bureaucrats on weather forecasting pertaining to Fram-related resignations: Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#RFC:Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud? –xeno^talk 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: what is the purpose of the RFC which you have linked here? I thought it is at the discretion of the crats whether to resysop or not, and they make the determination on whether someone was under a cloud at the time the request is made. The community can't mandate a particular course of action, one way or the other. In particular, in the case of WJBScribe, there was an active recall debate underway at the time of their resignation, which was closed as moot because they had already resigned. That seems like a classic case of "under a cloud" to me, but again it's up to crats to decide that, not people at the WP:FRAM page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

”I thought it is at the discretion of the crats whether to resysop or not, and they make the determination on whether someone was under a cloud at the time the request is made.” True, however bureaucrats still consider advisement from the community on such matters. My intent was to draw attention to the discussion to ensure that it receives wide participation. I am somewhat concerned that those who do not share the opinion of the current majority will be hesitant to weigh in. In future, such RfCs should probably be held at the talk page of the relevant policy (in this case, it would be WT:Administrators. –xeno^talk 13:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the section has already been archived. Besides, unusual cases make bad precedent. UninvitedCompany 13:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC ran for less than 24 hours? Should be re-opened. –xeno^talk 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, also I think the audience of the WP:FRAM page is likely biased and framing some specific cases in a general term that I think is mostly irrelevant to the overall premsise: namely that for most of the former administrators that have recently resigned, there is no "cloud" concern at all. When all that was involved in a resignation was a I'm upset at the foundation type statement that accompanied most of the resignations, that alone doesn't rise anywhere near the "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status" brightline. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

e.g. see the "Gadfium" section above - is was a rather routine and "boring" request - the kind we like! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I took it as referring to the bold few who performed unblocks myself, and answered it on that basis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I thought that was obvious enough from the title: "Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud?" However, the RFC should probably not be taken too seriously concerning future resignations of this type, if any. Hans Adler 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Per xaosflux, I don’t really consider that page to be neutral. I’ll go ahead and state that while I don’t think most of the people did, it needs to be case by case. In my view WJBscribe certainly resigned under a cloud if you look at the circumstances surrounding his resignation, and an overly broad RfC on a page that’s going to be sympathetic to everyone involved shouldn’t somehow absolve him from making the extreme violations of community trust he did that required other bureaucrats to overrule him. Someone resigning with an active ArbCom case, a recall petition, and other crats overruling an abuse of advanced permissions pretty squarely falls under “controversial circumstances” even if every other administrator doesn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Intreresting opinion. Thanks for being so open. Hans Adler 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I am in sympathy with their motives, I agree with Tony. Unfortunately I fear the point is likely moot. My impression, and I hope I'm wrong, was that WJBscribe left with no intention of returning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

While I think the RfC question is valid, I'm with Tony in thinking that the Fram page and Fram talk page is not a appropriate location for any discussion regarding policy changes. It is too emotionally charged and there are many editors who are staying clear of the entire subject. It's an okay place for venting but a bad place for making proposals that need widespread participation.

Besides, in the current milieu, I have more faith in a discussion among bureaucrats regarding individual cases than general policy changes made in exceptional circumstances. Over the years, I've seen many discussions here regarding resysoppings in a wide variety of cases and I can't think of an instance where bureaucrats refused to resysop when I thought the former admin should have been. You all have years of considering the circumstances of resysoping and I trust you will make the right decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Liz. In any case, standard practice in these cases is exactly as Liz described: to defer the decision to the time at which the former admin requests resysopping at this page, and the decision will be made by a discussion of bureaucrats. I would suggest that we avoid deviating from standard practice for the reasons above. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is essentially what I was getting at above. Tony has put it much better though. The FRAM page has no jurisdiction to dictate whether the crats should resysop or not. It's fine for them to advise, but the crats should not feel under any obligation to honour the RFC's result.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is advertised over CENT and you might as well say that The community has no jurisdiction to dictate ....... ∯WBG^converse 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it is advertised, many editors are staying away from the Fram pages. I would give it more credence if it was relocated to the Village Pump or to policy talk pages. The vocal minority of people at the Fram pages does not "the community" make. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

People who are in the minorities genuinely (but often mistakenly) believe that there is a silent majority rooting for them. That's a historical trend and there have been quite much research around this locus. ∯WBG^converse 05:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the vocal minority believe that the silent majority is rooting for them. I don't know if we will ever know for sure whether or not they are mistaken. And with that comment, my remarks about this particular point will end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Only two editors in the current saga (who have resigned ) come under a cloud or contraversial circumstamces .That was precisely mentioned here” I will note that regardless of the outcome of the case, WJBscribe and Floquenbeam resigned under a cloud - as the case was live and both knew this when they resigned. I have no doubt that both would pass a RfA/B in the future, and that should be the way to return to the bits - should they want to. WormTT(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule as per this ArbCom case .This clearly states that it is deemed to be under a cloud unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise and states ( in a motion) that the tools be returned otherwise one has to go through standard request process .Further WJB's case is even more complex as a an active recall debate was laso open .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm slightly biased, having participated in the RfC, but I'd view it as advisory, and (like the incidents it's referring to) not something that should be considered a general precedent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Opabinia regalis I am puzzled as you were main author of Reversion_of_office_actions 2 .Why did you not include in the motion for restoration of tools ,nobody in recent memory going back to Durova Case or Aitias case that anyone resigned while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her at any stage of the case has had his/her tools returned. Surely you are not saying that crats can return tools without a Arbcom motion.WTT had clearly his opinion right baove your motion.If you feel tools need to be returned particurly to the above mentioned two.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know WTT shared his opinion at the case request, but Arbcom is not the Borg :) I don't find past precedent particularly compelling here, since the whole point of this situation is that it's unprecedented. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

    I felt that was a good place to make my opinion known, but it was my opinion. I'd happily share that same opinion as a 'crat, should either of the editors appear at the BN asking for their bits back. I may well be shot down there too. Were I them, I would happily run through an RfA, confident that the message that it sent would should the community's opinion on their actions. Worm^TT(talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I frankly do not like the way that some editors are using the discussion here (at BN) to cast doubt on the validity of the RfC. The RfC is properly listed, so it's not like WT:FRAM is some kind of walled garden. If you can make a valid case about what the RfC asks, go there and make it. Don't look for someplace more "friendly" to say what you are unwilling to say there. (And isn't this similar to what got us into the controversy to begin with? Someone appears to have thought that T&S would be a better forum to shop at, than ArbCom would have been.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  "Walled garden" - Ironically - incredibly - one editor (at least) called it just that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  it's Not casting doubt on the validity of the RFC per se, just noting that (a) the RFC cannot compel crats to act in any way in particular in the hypothetical scenario that one of the admins who resigned asks for their tools back; policy is clear that the crats may take advice from others, but the decision is theirs, to make at the time in question. And (b) that WP:FRAM is not a neutral venue, it is populated in the majority by the section of the community that feels strongly that the WMF's actions were wrong. People with opposing views are tending not to post at that page.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Crats derive their power from the community and apart from pocket-vetoeing the community, crats do not have a right to overrule us. Also, what dataset led you to the second hypothesis? ∯WBG^converse 05:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is who is "us". There are differences of opinion on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The simplistic answer is, of course, that "us" is the community. But I think it's important to recognize that Wikipedia's concept of WP:Consensus is that, so long as a discussion has been properly advertised and open long enough, the consensus is determined by those editors who take part in that discussion, and not by hypothetical editors who never took part in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

So ... no non-voting "silent majority", then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The RFC is premature (if not hypothetical) as none of the administrators who resigned who might conceivably be thought to have been "under a cloud" have asked to return. As I have noted elsewhere, such a determination is customarily made only once a request for return of adminship is made. I think it is important to recognize that RFA remains an alternative for anyone not eligible for automatic return of adminship, whether the reasons are meteorological or chronological. It is there that the community can offer its voice. UninvitedCompany 16:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems only a matter of when we get a request from one of the users involved. Indeed, WJBscribe filed for arbitration immediately after the Resysopping, and was watching this website after retiring. I can even imagine that particular user forcing the question upon Wikipedia, as they did something similar in the first place. We cannot easily avoid this and other difficult questions. AGK ■ 18:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I note that the WMF have referenced this essay I wrote <edit> started </edit> some years ago.

I think it'd be worth us considering developing it into a guideline. Could I encourage those watching this page to review it and help improve it, (or perhaps explain why we shouldn't have a guideline on this topic). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, it probably should be an {{explanatory supplement}} but since WP:CRAT is a mashup of information and policy already, shouldn't the long-term strategy be to create a policy page about all crat-related things, including what "under a cloud" is? Regards SoWhy 09:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe fixing CRAT is the better place to start. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the text is very good as it stands and has stood the test of time. Maybe promote it to advice page or guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Policy-wise we already have the line in the admin policy, If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation... The essay certainly helps to explain what some cases of "serious questions" are. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I amended my text above. I started the essay. Others improved it. Notably, FT2 contributed most of the good bits. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Under a cloud § New title is needed, I suggest renaming the page, but for a different reason. For a global audience, I think it would be better to avoid using an idiomatic phrase as the title. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be upgraded. In pursuit of avoiding WP:CREEP, we have been too reluctant to upgrade essays to guidelines. There are two changes that I would suggest:

• A full stop instead of a comma before "for example"
• Where it says "the usual process", it should link to Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices so that someone reading it doesn't have to hunt for the usual process. Note that the former does not incorporate all the detail of the latter.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

There remains a great deal of what I will call "nuts and bolts" type details in terms of our relationship with the WMF still to be resolved. However, based on the replies to my question here; I am satisfied that the immediate, and I believe extreme threat to the traditional autonomy of the community posed by T&S which impelled my resignation, is over. Those answers from editors I hold in very high regard, combined with some of the comments from Jimbo and others directly connected with the board give me a sense of cautious optimism that whatever changes may be coming, they will not be imposed unilaterally. For me at least, that is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any issues, standard 24-hour hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done welcome back --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I've been keeping a careful eye on the situation and I believe WMF are now acutely aware of how the community feels regarding their wholly inappropriate, badly performed clusterfuck. I trust this situation will not be permitted to reoccur. Nick (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also acknowledge the standard 24 hour hold. Nick (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any issues preventing return following that standard hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I'm reading the above linked WP:RESYSOP correctly; am I able to reasonably request a return of my tools? ty for your time. — Ched :  ?  — 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non crat comment) Yes, it would be automatic in your case as well; the time limit since the last admin action only kicks in if you were desysopped for inactivity. Provided you resigned voluntarily, then even one edit every two years and 364 days would be enough for you to count as "active". ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why not. –xeno^talk 15:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

OK - thank you, I appreciate your time. — Ched :  ?  — 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter whether the 5-year rule applies here, when Ched's last admin action was in December 2015, meaning, even if that rule applied, it wouldn't prevent restoration of adminship until December 2020. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: would you actually like to have access returned? There is a normal 24-hour hold from when you "request" it. Regarding the timers, you are clearly safe from the '5 year rule' until at least 2020-12-29 - beyond that there will likely be at least a lot of arguing that could be avoided if you came back before then (or if you chose to request access via the standard process); keep in mind that this is a wiki and policies could change as well! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I for one would be very happy if you did! Regards SoWhy 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why thank you SoWhy, I consider that quite a compliment. Xaosflux, I'll have to think about that for a bit. I was simply curious about the current reading of the resysop policy. While I'm thinking, I'll review the current versions of various policy pages and their attending talk pages. To be honest, I am concerned about how the role of the WMF is evolving; and I certainly don't want to diminish the actions of 28, Floq, Boing, Beebs, Dennis, DJ, WJB, Spartz, and so many others have undertaken in the past month or so. tl;dr Not at the moment, but thank you and I'll consider it in the future. — Ched :  ?  — 21:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If you'll forgive a moment of cynicism, if you're considering it you may want to request the bit back now, and re-resign if you subsequently decide you don't want it. I wouldn't be surprised if the thread above leads to a radical tightening of the inactivity policy fairly soon, and while I don't doubt you'd pass a new RFA it would be an unnecessary waste both of your time and of the time of everyone participating. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent sounds like good advice ATM. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Anytime, we never close! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:BNMaintenance, this noticeboard closes between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. UTC on the first of every month for maintenance, i.e., such tasks as desysopping, decratting, the usual.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Requesting Interface administrator permission: [14]. Before the new user group was created limiting this access, I was able to check on the texts of the messages used in the New Pages Feed/Curation system and adapt them as required. As this is currently under longer term development, I would like to be able to check on these texts and alter them as appropriate on discussion with New Page Reviewers. I do not intend to edit any other parts of the Wikipedia interface. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: you should be able to edit the messages as a normal admin - the documentation about the defaults was wrong (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/mediawiki/browse/master/includes/DefaultSettings.php;f32c4526b367c12de3e15f6e168969e4f6ae66b5$5181 confirms that sysops have the rights by default) and Special:ListGroupRights#sysop confirms that you have editinterface as a normal sysop --DannyS712 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not opposing but as a sysop, you ought to edit the messages. Wrong documentation? ∯WBG^converse 07:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, have you tried to edit the interface? If you aren't able to, please let me know and I'll file a task on phabricator (and then strongly support your request for IAdmin) DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DannyS712. As I have not needed to do this yet I automatically assumed that even admins needed to apply for the right. My bad for not being fully up to date ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As of now, only pages ending with .js and .css requires interface adminship. — regards, Revi 08:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to test and find out if you can make the edits, I just made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-warning-predatory --DannyS712 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, for this standard economy sized admin MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-predatory has an "edit source" button that loads a normal edit page upon clicking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

{{on hold}} @Kudpung: please verify if you are able to do what you need without the change and would like to withdraw this request at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Withdraw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)