Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Graham87	115	131	9	47	Open	10:11, 24 November 2024	4 days, 10 hours	no	report

It is 23:37:32 on November 19, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop request (Floq)

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: To quote:

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

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

  Additionally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floquenbeam resysopped by WJBscribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sysop flag for DeltaQuadBot

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

---

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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · 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)

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

Desysop request - Gadfium

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)

Desysop please - Boing! said Zebedee

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)