Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 07:49, 26 June 2019 (→‎Resignation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

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

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 2
CHU reqs 1
RfAs 1
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 1
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Kees08 143 6 6 96 00:37, 14 October 2019 0 days, 0 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It is 00:35:08 on October 14, 2019, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Desysop request - Gadfium

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.

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)

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 please - Boing! said Zebedee

Done. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

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 [1] : "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)

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 -- Kusma

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.  Donexenotalk 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)

Daffy123 RfA

Done. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

It has been withdrawn.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I did the needful. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 23 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 - Dennis Brown

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 - 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 - 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes.... (desysop for Lectonar)

....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)

Remove sysop from User:GB fan

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)

Admin status of User:Fram

The Meta policy on global bans states that a global ban is a formal revocation of editing or other access privileges (emphasis added). The Office Actions as performed by the WMF include partial bans, which hold the same weight as a global ban but are language/site-specific. The WMF (and by extension, the WMFOffice account) does not need enwiki approval to ban or remove the permissions of a user, and their global policy specifically states that banned members should not hold access privileges, which include access to deletedtext as an admin.
To come back to enwiki policies, our policy on administrators states that Regardless of how adminship is removed... In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes places and is closed.

Per the above two sections, Fram's bit should not have been restored and will be removed again. WJBscribe has stated that they will not oppose their actions being reversed, and until ArbCom and/or the WMF make a statement as to the outcome of the situation, Fram's userrights should not be changed.

Primefac (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Maxim(talk) 02:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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 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, 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 lainsane (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 - 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 - 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)

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.

Recall request (WJBscribe)

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 - 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. –MJLTalk 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 eng

age 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. GMGtalk 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. WBGconverse 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)
  • Oppose recall- Clearly, WJBscribe is acting according to community consensus. Reyk YO! 07:18, 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)


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)