This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Thank youEdit

Your action on Floq was the right thing to do, and I very strongly thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My thanks as well. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 ~Awilley (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I won't leave a semi-flippant Spartacus-themed note here, like I did for Bish, because I don't think you did this for Spartacus-type reasons. I think you did it because you simply believe it was the right thing to do. An honourable thing to do, and putting much more than I did on the line. A pleasure to share the website with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And it is my honor to be here as well--with you, Floq, and with you, WJBScribe. And Bish, and a bunch of others including NihonJoe. I love all of you old-timers. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What was the point of wrestling Jimbo for self-governance only to lose it to "WMF Trust and Safety", whoever they are... Btw, who came up with such an Orwellian name? WJBscribe (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 Excellent move. -FASTILY 00:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe, for your courage and integrity, I salute you! El_C 02:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And thanks from me too, WJBscribe. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to add my voice to the many above. Thank you! Lepricavark (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We've never met, as far as I know, but your name now, for me, will be one that I hold in respect and will be synonymous with fairness, integrity, and courage. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Huzzah for a champion of those who care enough to do it for free. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

For services renderedEdit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You are a brave person, and I respect that. I hope something good comes out of all of this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for giving the sysop back to Floq. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!Edit

  The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, as well as your firm commitment to accountability, thank you, WJBscribe. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

‎A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
"I regard myself to be a servant of the community, not the WMF." ~WJBscribe [1] Benjamin (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your action, and for that rationale, WJBscribe. --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Idem Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending our community values! Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
For your resysopping of Floq,

You're one of those admins that simply stays out of all drama and to my knowledge you've never came in and done something like this I guess,

I absolutely agree with what Floq said you did this because you believed you were correct and that it was the correct thing to do and I think I can say without a doubt the community are right behind you and obviously the majority do think what you've done is honourable and correct,

Anyway babbling on - Many thanks for reysopping Floq and also many thanks for your valued contributions here,

Take care, –Davey2010Talk 11:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent actionsEdit

My goodness I admire your guts, clear-headedness and the common decency you showed when referring yourself to Arbcom. I definitely wouldn't have granted the resysop (you probably knew that anyway) and I am uncomfortably unsure if I really agree with it in policy terms, but that doesn't mean I don't applaud it. For however long it lasts, I'm proud to be your colleague and wish I knew more people like you in real life. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for standing up for what's right. Jonathunder (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Cosmic Barn(ard's)starEdit


For your awe-inspiring resysop of Floquenbeam. (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Hopefully you don't need it, but in case you do...

I admire people who do what's right even if it's not necessarily what's "supposed to" happen, or what's popular. Frood 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What happenedEdit

To me it looks like ArbCom or one of their members felt it would be too controversial to sanction Fram for incivility, so they passed the buck to WMF. They hoped that “secret evidence” could be cited to make people think Fram was a horrible person, but this scheme seems to have backfired, spectacularly. I’m just shaking my head at the stupidity of it all. Thank you for your service. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Jehochman Talk 23:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we know enough to draw that conclusion and I prefer to AGF where possible. However, now that the theory is gaining traction I think it's important to diffuse defuse it. It ought to be straightforward for current ArbCom members (and indeed one who recently resigned) to confirm that they did not contact the WMF Truth & Safety team regarding Fram prior to the Office ban being implemented... WJBscribe (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that you want to diffuse that theory rather than defuse it? Personally I would have thought that was one of the theories worth defusing, or at least worth misdirecting/distracting people away from. BTW the London meetup is only a couple of weeks away, any chance of you joining us there? ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed - well spotted. WJBscribe (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 10:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Worm has reported that the Committee didn’t start this fiasco and he is not aware of any Arb who might have. I suppose we need to ask each one to confirm that this wasn’t malice. The AGF conclusion is than WMF staff are inexperienced, lacking legal or cybersecurity expertise. They’re out of their depth and WMF will have to be much more careful in the future. A great mystery is why FloNight (talk · contribs) didn’t warn them off, or maybe she did. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we're quite capable of causing our own mess on Wikipedia (c.f. recent security announcements) without getting the WMF involved. I'm a little disappointed that you're pushing for some sort of conspiracy theory here Jehochman. WormTT(talk) 13:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories may be regrettable but now that they exist, it is probably best just to address them square on. WJBscribe (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that one arb has already publicly confirmed that they "discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team" prior to the ban, I'm not sure "conspiracy theory" is a fair accusation. 28bytes (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
28bytes, having knowledge of the case is a long way from asking the WMF to act. WormTT(talk) 15:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
If it wasn’t an Arbitrator, just ask your peers to say so. If WMF weren’t invited, then the story will be WMF assuming ArbCom’s role. As Carcharoth has suggested elsewhere, the proper response would be for the arbitrators to resign en mass. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman and everyone here. I'm saddened by this whole thing - though I do get where you're coming from. My understanding is that it wasn't just one individual who had raised concerns with the foundation, but I do not know the details of the individuals that have made the complaints. If any arbitrator did so, they would have done so as a member of the community. One of the points that has come up is the idea that the community has no method to handling on-wiki hostilities privately - and actually, that's true. It goes against the mindset of Wikipedians, and this discussion exemplifies it.
You are looking for someone to take responsibility for getting Fram banned. I get that, I really do - the idea of taking responsibility for accusations and allowing someone to rebut with evidence. And from there when it comes down to it, you want to be able to balance the scales, work out who was more valuable to the encyclopedia. We see it regularly in terms like "net positive", or labelling someone's work as trash.
Perhaps it's time to change that mindset. I don't know. What I do know is that I've been told, multiple times, by many editors, that they were leaving Wikipedia because of the way they've been treated by other individuals. Wikipedia was an experiment, using a social group to create the "sum of all human knowledge". We've built our own rules and our own walled garden of how to behave. This whole case is making me take a step back and look at the bigger picture - are we behaving how we would expect to in society? Have our cultural norms fallen that far from real life cultural norms?
There are bigger questions here than one person's ban. I'm interested in working out the answers to those questions. WormTT(talk) 15:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk about good practice. (1) I don't want somebody from the community to be singled out. It actually doesn't matter who complained, as long as it wasn't an arbitrator. (2) If a complaint comes to WMF, if it involved legal issues, such as criminal behavior, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or something similar, I want that to be handled by WMF legal staff. I don't want it handled by social media specialists a few years out of university. I want licensed lawyers involved. (3) If WMF gets a confidential complaint about an abusive administrator or editor related to their edits on wiki, they should hand it off the ArbCom with all the evidence but without the names of the complainants. What to do depends upon the verifiable evidence. It doesn't matter who submits the diffs; the diffs speak for themselves. (4) WMF should absolutely not create an alternative pathway to avoid ArbCom. We don't want some guy from Germany who hasn't edited en-wiki for over five years and isn't even a native English speaker to try to determine what language is abusive, and what isn't. The nuanced analysis of that problem is ideal for ArbCom.
If an arbitrator initiated this debacle, that would draw their judgment into question and might require them to resign. I am concerned that arbitrators heard about this wreck as it was happening and didn't strenuously warn WMF that they were about to drive off a cliff. Maybe they did, and WMF refused to listen. Either way we have work to do to get everybody on the same page, following good practices. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions. Anne drew (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
For acting when the time is ripe :) [2] starship.paint (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for everything.Edit

Out of all the names that have resigned, I'm most sorry to see yours become one of one of them. I hope that time will heal this wound, but I know the odds of that happening aren't great. Thanks for all you've done, the years of service and, on a personal note, for granting my rename back in 2008, when another 'crat tried to block it for personal reasons. Best of luck for the future, Will. Promethean (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. The project will be worse off without you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI
Black day, loosing the best - as I said to Boing already. Take some flowers on your way, miss you, miss you, miss you. I woke up this morning thinking that you deserve Impact, and will give it to you when there's more room here, - first flowers then cherry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia. I wish that you would edit again even if not intending to recover previous privileges. Although I've been following it from a bird's eye, this whole affair blew way out of proportions to me. However, I realize that I have much less investment and involvement in the project than all those who recently resigned. Remains to hope for deescalation and perhaps more new admins to compensate soon ("la releve")... —PaleoNeonate – 08:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe it was "out of proportion". The installation of a secret police which you can't appeal deserves strong opposition, because it kills the spirit of community, no less. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

- Ring any bells? Promethean (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your impact
defending the principles
and values of the community!
... as announcd above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
... Sorry! Just empathizing with the sentiment. Promethean (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sure, but for perspective: here are the internal processes of a private entity (including arbcom), vs the legal office dealing with real-world legal issues (including as necessary, providing information to courts while attempting to preserve confidentiality). Real courts (and more powerful political kangaru courts) affect lives. This affects access to a private website (and virtual avatars, accounts). But I understand the frustration (probably not fully) and will respectfully stop to debate about this after this message... —PaleoNeonate – 09:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The 'real world' is a varied place, and while some can find a legal warrant or precedent in some systems for the WMF's usurpation of what most think is an ARBCOM matter, others will recall that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the impeccable neutral Israeli NGO B'tselem, and numerous legal scholars agree that the 99% conviction rate of military courts in the West Bank for offences from terrorism to stone throwing, marrying a foreigner without a permit, or having a distant relative who works for the Hamas administration (which invalidates permission to take up one's Fulbright scholarship) draw on 'evidence' given by secret services that is available neither to the accused nor their lawyers. Such systems are intrinsically open to abuse, and documented cases of such abuse are very extensive. Most editors here will recall less controversial stories closer to our native bone. If the intent loudly declared for these innovations is to make Wikipedia 'comfortable' for all, that kind of frustrating analogy should have been present to the SF bureaucrats as it certainly is to the overwhelming number of arbs and editors here who, as writers, are exposed to a far wider cultural and political range of historical events - which arbs to must familiarize themselves with to adjudicate on many conflicts that arise over a very variegated article diapason,- than is evidently the case with the employees at T&S. No legal move of this nature should constrain workers to feel pushed into a serious ethical dilemma, as has happened here.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Such a sad day, I consider you to be of one of the best admins/'crats the project/foundation has ever had, Anyway thank you for your service here, I hope one day you return, Take care and I wish you all the best, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for everything you've done for Wikipedia and the community. Guettarda (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Very sorry to see you go. I hope you feel able to return one day. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you goEdit

  Thanks for your service
"Dark times lie ahead of us, and there will be a time when we must choose between what is right and what is easy." – some Irish bloke

filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. This sucks. –xenotalk 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. Shine on. El_C 10:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. –Davey2010Talk 11:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Every action you’ve taken in this has been based on an honorable and consistent set of principles. I can’t say that. Not many can. Thanks. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Worst thing I've ever done on WikipediaEdit

I've removed your sysop flag. I've always admired you as an editor, admin and crat. I don't agree with all your recent actions, but, as I posted above, I admire the heck out of your courage, communication skills, clear thinking and abhorrence of pussyfooting. I suspect your retirement will indeed be permanent and that, combined with the negativity of the situation, saddens me more than anything. I wish you good luck with all your RL endeavours. But if you're anything like your onwiki self IRL, you don't need any luck. Be well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, for what it is worth, I am glad it was you who did it. WJBscribe (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and a farewell noteEdit

I wanted to say a huge thank you not only to those who have posted supportive messages here and elsewhere, but also to those who have posted criticisms of my actions. It has been a pleasure editing this project alongside each and every one of you, whether we have agreed or not. I hope that those whose advice I have not felt able to follow over the last couple of weeks do think it fell on deaf ears. I have read every word and listened carefully.

Some have suggested that my recent actions have been out of character. I think that overlooks some of my history on this project. I have always believed more in principles than rules. Some may remember my unblock of Giano during the 2008 ArbCom elections, others my staunch objection to the existence of an off-wiki bureaucrat mailing list, or indeed my strong opposition to certain resysop decisions at WP:BN that I felt ran contrary to the best interests of the project. It is probably true to say that I have been one of the most "activist" / "interventionist" bureaucrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to the judgment of others, but I make no apology for it.

Harassment is a serious issue, and one that has affected me personally in my time editing the project. I have never spoken publicly about the full reasons for my withdrawal from the 2008 ArbCom elections. I did so due to threats I received that actions would be taken against me in the real world to embarrass me and my then employer. I had recently started a new position and was relatively junior, so that was a threat that I could not ignore. I withdrew from the elections and resigned as an admin and bureaucrat. Some months later, when I felt more secure and established at work, I resumed service as an admin and bureaucrat. It has been a matter of great sadness to me to see some suggest that I don't take the issue of harassment seriously or that recent actions by me are supportive of harassment. That is not the case, and I caution people against being overly quick to accept unquestioningly a narrative that has been presented to them. The WMF account of its actions in relation to Fram does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny - it should be treated with utmost suspicion.

There are two very serious problems facing the community at the moment, and neither ought to be allowed to eclipse the other:

  1. WMF v community self-governance. There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to. The number of staffers would need to rise exponentially to fill the gap. I suggest WMF think long and hard about the value to them of the volunteer time they benefit from.
  2. Fair process in WMF actions. In all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the accused must have basic rights. Those include the right to know the name of their accuser(s), to understand what they are accused of, and to have the opportunity to defend themselves. The accused must also have the right for any public statement about them to clearly identify the misconduct that they were found to have committed, rather than to be subject to vague insinuations and innuendo thrown about from those who claim to speak from a position of authority. Fram has been treated abysmally. The decision of two of my fellow bureaucrats to re-enact a punishment applied by WMF with no respect for basic concepts of fairness was the last straw in convincing me that I could not continue here.

I would remind everyone that over the last few years I been minimally active on the project, with little time to dedicate to it. Everyone will be fine without me. I also think that it is time for this project to stop relying on old hands in key positions. ArbCom is increasingly comprised of re-elected former Arbs, many bureaucrats (including me) were elected over a decade ago. That's not a good thing. We need fresh blood in key roles.

I hope that matters are resolved in relation to the two issues that I have identified above such that in future I will feel able to continue contributing to this project, but my days as a bureaucrat or administrator are done. WJBscribe (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that clear summary of the problem, and for all that you have done here, as well as the wise advice that you used to dispense at London meetups. We have missed you for a long while at those meetups and the community will miss you here. I can only hope that at some point things change to the point where you feel able to return to either or both. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, while I thought your resysop of Fram was a spectacularly bad decision (due to potentially missing information about off-wiki harassment), I always have respect for principles and transparency, something I haven't seen in the WMF as of late. The dumbest thing about this whole mess is it could have been prevented if the WMF had simply and transparently said something like, "For harassment, including off-wiki harassment at an editor's workplace [or insert whatever he really did here], Fram is banned". As it is, the indications from the WMF are that something happened off-wiki, but their alleged email to Fram simply mentions the "Fuck Arbcom" tirade. If Fram is lying, why don't the WMF simply call him out? While there is a need for privacy and to not re-victimize people, a purely-opaque process is just as bad. Anyways, I'm sad to see you step down, since you seem to have some of the strongest and most transparent principles. I know what you stand for. I can't say the same about the WMF. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, WJBscribe. Be well. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you from me. You were one of several crats I was deeply disappointed in in a recent decision. But your two actions in relation to the WMF's temporary ban on Fram, and your rationales for them, earned my respect. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And a very profound thank you from me. I believe that you have shown the highest level of integrity throughout this awful period in Wikipedia's history, and that you should hold your head high. I wish you all the best – and I wish you a very short retirement from Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I admittedly don't agree with your actions. I think that none of us know the real reasons for Fram's block & desysop and I'm not sure, if the harassment was true, that he was entitled to confront his accuser. But I do admire you for acting according to your principles and I'm sorry that you want to retire. There will always be a place for you here and I think both those who agree with your actions and those who felt they crossed a line would welcome your return as an editor. I'm also sorry that you faced harassment 11 years ago which no Wikipedian should be subject to. Please come back should your desire to contribute return. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind words. Just to be clear, I think there is world of difference between knowing who your accuser is (which is a basic right irrespective of the nature of the complaint against you) and a right to "confront" your accuser, which would rarely (if ever) be appropriate. I have never advocated for the latter. WJBscribe (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, there is nothing "judicial" nor "quasi-judicial" about anything here. Such rhetoric is preposterous, and the unfortunate thing is some people seem believe website participation is a judicial matter. It is not, and the sooner people can be disabused of that fantasy, the better for them. At any rate, I too, wish you well. I wish you would have found a way to choose restraint as a functionary from the get go in this matter, and I wish you would have even found a way to stay in the function (even though, what you say about 'new blood' functionaries is still very wise). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm very sad that it all came to this. I disagree with your actions in this whole situation with Fram, but I do think you were approaching the situation with calmness and logic, and that's something that this movement needs more of, not less. Best of luck to you in all your future endeavours, Will. I hope our paths cross again. --Deskana (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I know that I haven't worked with you (or anyone really) lately, but like I said earlier, doing what's right even if it's not what's "supposed to" happen takes courage, and I respect the hell out of that. As the late Aaron Swartz said, "There is no justice in following unjust laws". Frood 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia and best wishes. I hope the current problems will be resolved satisfactorily and that will encourage you to return. Donner60 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


I have been reading the various developments since I posted above. I just wanted to drop a note to say that I share many of the views expressed by those who have responded to the recent statements by the WMF Board and CEO (both in terms of disappointment that there wasn't more, and optimism that they nevertheless paint a way forwards). I think many, potentially including Board members, may have had unrealistic expectations as to what those statements would achieve. Words alone were never going to be enough to convince all those who have left to reconsider, nor to prevent further resignations/retirements. Too much trust has been lost along the way for there to be an easy fix available. I for one will continue to watch developments and to see how community interactions with the WMF actually change in the coming weeks/months, and whether a fair process is developed to replace the current WMF T&S fiasco. I confess to be skeptical as to what will be achieved, but I am trying hard to keep an open mind. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. WJBscribe (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

7 weeks later...Edit

I am saddened by developments since I have been away. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence and the failure to present evidence from T&S so that Fram can defend themselves is abhorrent. ArbCom's treatment of Ritchie333 is inexcusable. Certain "Wikimedia movement" "Working Group" recommendations show a strong push to move the project in a manner totally incompatible with the pillars on which it was built. I confess to despair at the state of affairs. It is difficult right now to imagine being able to participate here again in future... WJBscribe (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks you for everything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


  A deserved flower
No symbolism; just a flower I like. For you. Because you have support. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Recommended reading on 3 JulyEdit

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about about alienation,
  • unresponsive bureaucracy,
  • the frustration of
  • trying to conduct business
  • with non-transparent,
  • seemingly arbitrary
  • controlling systems ...

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motionEdit

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:

Community advised

Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([3]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.

In response, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ([4]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice (talk · contribs) ([5]). WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ([6]).

Although official WMF policy states that 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, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([7]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 02:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

A kitten for you!Edit

Sorry that you had to leave. You were so much help over the years.

Bearian (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for doing all you could. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have quoted you....Edit

at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2/Bureaucrat_chat#Dweller. This is just a courtesy notification. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your statementsEdit

above, "7 weeks on", and at Arbcom, deserve more than a mashing of the "thanks" button. Thank you for expressing your dismay. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus one. I have spent less time here of late, revived an old hobby and tried out a new one. I don't yet give up hope of Arbcom at least doing something sensible. But we'd also need multiple Uturns by the WMF. ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Half full, half emptyEdit

ArbCom has always had a mailing list where they discuss cases. I don't think we should pummel an arbitrator who discloses what was discussed on the list. This is better than them talking privately without any disclosure. Hopefully their discussion will now continue in public. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Special awardEdit

For your steady hand during the Wikipedia constitutional crisis of 2019, I award you this polar exploration vessel. It made it to the ends of the world and back home. More or less in one piece. Haukur (talk)

Bureaucrat emeritusEdit

I miss you a lot. Not trying to make you feel guilty, or change your mind about serving, but the bureaucrat team is diminished by your absence.

I’ve been accused of “doggedly badger[ing] opposers”, and it you have any spare time and appetite for a review, I would appreciate your comments as to my behaviour with respect to Greenman’s RfA and whether I have acted inappropriately at any point. If you are willing and able, please speak freely as I value your wisdom.

If not, I completely understand. Hope you are finding enjoyment in some other hobby. –xenotalk 11:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(tps) I found enjoyment in your questioning of accusations without evidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

miss you - see Die Fliege (the fly) on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

... so delighted to read your measured comments again, "old" crat ;) - February flowers - late Valentine, read Alte Liebe and enjoy Handel's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)