Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Shortcuts

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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 20:48:07 on November 10, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

Was moved. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

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.

Resysop of Fram

Fram has been unblocked. I see no community consensus that the administrative user rights of Fram should have been revoked. Can anyone think of a reason the user rights should not be restored without delay? Alternatively, restored following the standard 24 hour hold period for commentary? –xeno^talk 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is still technically banned from en.wp. The actual T&S ban has not been reversed yet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is unblocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A block is different from a ban, and you know it. He may be unblocked, but any editing he did here would immediately be seen as a violation of the ban, and the last thing we want at this moment is for WMFOffice to escalate this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not a 'crat any longer but there was nothing offered by even the near-silent WMF that suggested Fram abused the tools. The desysop wasn't under a cloud, so a technical re-sysop is just natural. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is currently banned from enwiki, per the office action. If a bureaucrat were to restore the sysop flag at this point, that may well lead to a de-cratting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to restore rights, the 24 hour hold is not the major issue as Fram remains office-banned. You would be acting outside of any established norms. Maxim_(talk) 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Fram should be re-sysopped in 23 hours time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There is nothing normal about this situation. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Office actions#Secondary office actions.

In extremely rare situations, the Foundation may become aware of circumstances and information regarding major breaches of trust performed by Wikimedia functionaries or other users with access to advanced tools that are not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons and therefore can not be handled through existing community governance mechanisms. In some of those cases the abuses reported may not rise to the level of irreversibly expelling Wikimedians from the communities; however, they may be severe enough to have breached the community’s trust in the individuals involved and therefore warrant removal of administrative rights. Removal of user rights are usually either permanent or long term. Rebuilding trust is not impossible, which is why individuals are encouraged to reflect on their actions leading up to their advanced rights removal and consider how they may best serve the communities moving forward. In situations of long term removals, and once the no-rights period has elapsed, a contributor may have to fulfill additional criteria before they are permitted to reapply for advanced rights; those are made known to them at the time of the removal of advanced rights.

Reversing an office action out of process is not something that [is] not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons. And, reversal of an office action that has broad community opposition is not breach[ing] the community's trust. There is no grounds for an office decratting here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge Fram is currently under a WMF Ban, and access removal was an office action. So summary restoration is out of line of the bureaucrat mandate. Additionally, as the access removal was clearly not for inactivity or voluntary, an RfA should be required to ensure community support, following the prohibition period of the ban. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of your knowledge, Fram was banned for a year yet has been unblocked. To the best of your knowledge, you have absolutely no idea why Fram was de-sysopped, so to mandate another RFA is complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are technical measures that may be used to enforce bans, removal of blocks does not negate a ban. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering. The community have already summarily ignored an office action by reinstating Fram's editing ability. You're just lawyering ("technical"? What?) to avoid hard questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The 24 hour hold certainly should apply; bureaucrats should not be hasty in heated circumstances such as these. Unless the WMF re-blocks Fram or issues a new statement, I see no reason he shouldn't be re-sysoped tomorrow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with TRM, I understand if no crat wants to stick their hand in this fire and I dont think you can reasonably hold it against them if they stay away from this. Its also functionally a grey area in that the crats are elected by ENWP community to enact the decisions of the ENWP community in an impartial manner. Restoring rights that have been removed as part of an office action *but have no backing from the community* is clearly not something that has any real precedent here. The removal was not at arbcoms or the communities request and we generally as a community dont *want* crats to start getting creative - crats mandate is not to act on behalf of or for the WMF in any sort of dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there were a situation where allowing a little time to pass might make the consensus clearer, this would be it. I myself would wait until it is clear whether the community consensus will prevail regarding the block itself. Uninvited Company 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UC)

Agree, additionally I'd want to see a response on-wiki from Fram (which would also indicate that they are willing to violate their WMF Office ban). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not willing to take any bureaucrat action on Fram's account either way until the situation is resolved. Resysopping Fram is also not supported by the relevant policy, and there's no precedent to draw on. It's not for the bureaucrats to set precedent by acting unilaterally. For now, I think it's better for the situation to become clearer before acting. --Deskana (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that this it is too soon for 'crats to be taking any action here, irrespective of the various arguments for/against re-sysopping. Let the dust settle, and give WMF a chance to respond to the recent unblocking. There's no point in discussing a resysop if there's going to be a wheel war about the unblocking. Waggie (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both the block and the desysop were WP:OFFICE actions, so it was out-of-process to unblock, and it would be out-of-process to resysop. Why are we talking about procedural stuff like a 24 hour hold when we have so flagrantly disregarded the procedures surrounding WP:OFFICE? In the past, the Arbitration Committee has threatened to summarily desysop administrators who modify office actions, see [1]. Any bureaucrat seeking to resysop here, 24 hours or otherwise, would put themselves at risk to losing their bureaucrat access. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason why it's being mooted is because the community has agreed that Fram should be unblocked, and has been. There was no reason given as to why he was banned in the first instance, so retention of his sysop status should be natural (as a c.f. I was blocked while retaining admin rights). Why is this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some technical considerations, the executive summary is that no one cares enough that blocked admins can still do some admin things to fix that leak. See my talk. –xeno^talk 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. There has been no indication that Fram has warranted a desysop. But I'm now seeing how the game goes. He's unblocked but still "banned" which means that if he dares edit, the ban will be lengthened. He didn't abuse his tools once. Amazing. Way to go WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office actions are explicitly outside of the control of community consensus. Procedurally, we can't overturn their action no matter what our consensus is. It's quite dictatorial, but this is what it is. Resysopping would still be reversing an office action. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I blame the 'crats for not wanting to act here. In fact it would be outside of their remit to be "activist" and re-admin Fram without a mandate to do so.

However I completely disagree with the contention that Fram needs a new RFA should they be unbanned. The local community had no say in this process, and there is no indication he has lost this community's trust to handle the tools. That is the only reason to require a new RFA. Vague handwaving at secret evidence that as far as anyone knows has nothing to do with admin tools does not make this under a cloud by any previously accepted definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Until WMF actually get round to telling us why they decided to desysop Fram, this is just a purely cosmetic desysop, made by a few people in California. There's no cloud. As soon as any ban expires, Fram gets to be a sysop again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ban will expire in 1 year, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For every desysop of Fram there should be someone willing to re-sysop again. They're not going to desysop everyone. That would cause irreversible harm if they did that. But they'll always be those who consider their admin rights to be higher than their morals. Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm with Beeblebrox on this. Fram, though he may be a bit strident and controversial at times, has not generally lost the confidence and the trust of the community as a whole. Should he be reinstated as an administrator, it would be best done without any sort of RfA or pseudo-RfA process. Of course, given the standing ban, etc., I would certainly not fault any bureaucrat for taking no action at this time; or, once action is authorized (or independent action is taken), implementing a 24-hour hold. All the same, when all's said and done, I do wonder who shall be the courageous. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to agree with Beeblebrox here; absent a motion or determination by Arbcom that Fram's tools should not be reinstated at the end of whatever is going on at T&S, there is no valid reason not to return the tools at the end of that time, should he request them. If Arbcom believes he no longer meets the requirements to be an admin on this project, then they need to bite that bullet themselves. We have a community desysop process - it is via Arbcom. While I would never counsel the bureaucrats on this project to deliberately rescind an OFFICE action, once that action has expired, I can't really see a reason why the tools would not be reinstated upon Fram's request as of this writing. (And given the fact that almost nobody on the T&S team or the chain of individuals who are involved in OFFICE action decisions are actually in California and in many cases aren't even in the US, I think it may be time to let go of that canard.) Risker (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "SanFranBan" rolls off the tongue so nicely... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Desysop request (BU Rob13)

BU Rob13 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Desysop (Ansh666)

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

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

Notice: WMF desysop of Floquenbeam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocked

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

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

Desysop (Nick)

Nick (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

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

Off-topic discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Nick: Why not hang on to it long enough to unblock Fram if the WMF undoes Bishonen's unblock? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need, Ken; it turns out handing back the tools amounts to the same thing. I'm only now realizing that unblocking Fram is a mere gesture (doesn't mean I regret making that gesture), and makes no difference to his ability to edit. See explanations on User talk:Fram: he remains banned, and will presumably be hit even more harshly if he does edit, even once. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bish - It's true that Fram remains banned and that they should not, under any circumstance, edit here at this time. However, there is more than a "mere gesture" here. Each unblock requires the office to 1) re-block Fram, 2) de-sysop the unblocking admin, and thus 3) further inflame the situation. If you hand in your tools with a "I resign because of the conduct of the WMF" comment, the WMF can simply ignore it all until it blows over. It makes no difference to Fram, perhaps, but it makes a difference to 1) us and 2) the WMF, who is forced off the sidelines. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a novel argument that it is the WMF inflaming the situation when an admin acts in blatant violation of the Terms of Use they agree to when they edit this site. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Out of interest, do you mind telling us how you know what actions Fram was actually banned for? I've not seen the evidence behind the ban, ArbCom hasn't, the community hasn't. Have you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I did know. I know that Fram was already warned for his actions toward Laura, because he told us as much, and hasn't interacted with her since due to an IBAN. I can logically conclude he must have been banned for something else, especially given the WMF explicitly stated he had continued the pattern of behavior that initially got him warned and then reminded of that warning. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you were stating your personal conclusions as fact (as, also, are many others). Thank you for the clarification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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^[1], 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^[2]. So @WMFOffice:, and crats, I'm officially requesting a resysop today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Unless I'm on double secret probation, and there are other sanctions which I haven't been told about, which I suppose is actually a possibility here
^ Be very clear: they singled out Fram, and not one of 5 dozen other rude people. Ignoring other unprovable theories, this is because he is a thorn in their side for opposing a lot of their technical decisions. Opposing Fram's ban is not supporting incivility or abuse; it is recognizing that this is, literally, a fundamental abuse of power on their part. Sitting on the sidelines and leaving barnstars is not enough.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] -- Begoon 16:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You didn't, but the board chair did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
WMF Chair - [4] - "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Floquenbeam resysopped by WJBscribe

I've attempted to reformat the discussion somewhat to break out WJBscribe's resysopping, and comments associated with it, to make the discussion more chronological. Feel free to undo this reformatting if you think it doesn't help. --Deskana (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
There are ample doubts about the justification for the IBan-yet-not-IBan. ∯WBG^converse 09:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Desysop (TheDJ)

I've just noticed WJBscribe's resysop of Floquenbeam. I cannot support a community that undermines T&S. Also please take my IAdmin. Good luck everyone. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with regret. Please let us know when you want it back. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Unless I'm on double secret probation, and there are other sanctions which I haven't been told about, which I suppose is actually a possibility here

[2] Be very clear: they singled out Fram, and not one of 5 dozen other rude people. Ignoring other unprovable theories, this is because he is a thorn in their side for opposing a lot of their technical decisions. Opposing Fram's ban is not supporting incivility or abuse; it is recognizing that this is, literally, a fundamental abuse of power on their part. Sitting on the sidelines and leaving barnstars is not enough.

[1]

[2]