Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

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

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

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

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

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	16
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 20:37:48 on November 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

FRAMGATE Opposes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 - Dirk Beetstra

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I mean these statements - [1], [2], [3], [4]. For example, "To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide", "T&S is not going to be making any more moves like this without the agreement of the community. This is very firm from the board, and I will personally act, upon the advice of ArbCom, and with the backing of ArbCom and the community, if necessary", "To be fully clear (I'm saying this multiple times in the thread) this is not asking ArbCOm for an advisory opinion. It is a recognition that the traditional rights of the ArbCom remain valid. ArbCom has the authority to review this ban", and "To be clear, if ArbCom determines the length of 0 days, resysop, etc., I will fully support it. T&S would have to defy the board, me personally, ArbCom, and the assembled group of good people in the community. That's not going to happen". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 - Voice of Clam

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.

---

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

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

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

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.

Wikipedia:Under a cloud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resysop 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Relevant RFC about “clouds”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Only two editors in the current saga (who have resigned ) come under a cloud or contraversial circumstamces .That was precisely mentioned here” I will note that regardless of the outcome of the case, WJBscribe and Floquenbeam resigned under a cloud - as the case was live and both knew this when they resigned. I have no doubt that both would pass a RfA/B in the future, and that should be the way to return to the bits - should they want to. WormTT(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule as per this ArbCom case .This clearly states that it is deemed to be under a cloud unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise and states ( in a motion) that the tools be returned otherwise one has to go through standard request process .Further WJB's case is even more complex as a an active recall debate was laso open .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm slightly biased, having participated in the RfC, but I'd view it as advisory, and (like the incidents it's referring to) not something that should be considered a general precedent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Opabinia regalis I am puzzled as you were main author of Reversion_of_office_actions 2 .Why did you not include in the motion for restoration of tools ,nobody in recent memory going back to Durova Case or Aitias case that anyone resigned while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her at any stage of the case has had his/her tools returned. Surely you are not saying that crats can return tools without a Arbcom motion.WTT had clearly his opinion right baove your motion.If you feel tools need to be returned particurly to the above mentioned two.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know WTT shared his opinion at the case request, but Arbcom is not the Borg :) I don't find past precedent particularly compelling here, since the whole point of this situation is that it's unprecedented. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I frankly do not like the way that some editors are using the discussion here (at BN) to cast doubt on the validity of the RfC. The RfC is properly listed, so it's not like WT:FRAM is some kind of walled garden. If you can make a valid case about what the RfC asks, go there and make it. Don't look for someplace more "friendly" to say what you are unwilling to say there. (And isn't this similar to what got us into the controversy to begin with? Someone appears to have thought that T&S would be a better forum to shop at, than ArbCom would have been.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resysop request - Jonathunder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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