Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

I resigned the flag in January after a number of users complained about my behavioral issues [1]. I guess I know now how to deal with these issues (I had a bad incident two weeks ago and I have learned from it), and anyway I am not active at AN / ANI / wikidata-related discussions. However, users keep referring to me as if I have lost the flag for cause, and promise desysop procedures minutes after I get it back. I do not think these accusations are in any way justified, but I also can not stay with an undetermined status. Can I please have my flag back. After a transient period waiting for desysop procedures to run, I will continue doing what I was doing before (mainly RFPP and CfD). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

3 days have passed and it's time for this to end. There has been lots of discussion of a difficult decision and I thank people that it has been remarkably cool and sensible. There have been good arguments on both sides but both Deskana and I find there's enough consensus among us to flip the bit, especially after Useight's last comments. I think the Crats and community need to work on enhancing our documentation, particularly, as Xeno points out, gaps between instructions and policy. Ymblanter, I'd gently suggest that you reflect on the volume of opposition and why it has been levelled at them from seasoned and sensible contributors. I'd add that it's important to do this even if this does not go to an Arbcom case. I'm going to give you back the mop - please bear it well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you and everybody participating in this discussion. I got a lot of useful feedback which I will obviously need to take into account. May I also please suggest that users having issues with my actions (which I obviously expect would not happen, but shit sometimes still happens with all of us) would start with visiting my user talk page. It (almost) never happened in the past, and if it did, many things could have gone differently. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dweller commented below: I see no reason not to restore the bit, subject to our usual 24 hour wait period, so about 20 hours from now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) —DoRD (talk)​ 19:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've read everything posted below and while I recognise that there was criticism of the user around the time of his passing up the mop, I currently see no impediment to WP:RESYSOP. I'll take another look in the morning, my time, in case I've overlooked something or there's some new evidence. Happy to hear from other crats, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A few thoughts:

• We should extend the waiting period by an extra 24 hours to allow a chance for comments from more bureaucrats.
• Desysoping is within the scope of Arbcom and I don't want to go with a decision similar to a desysop by way of resignation + unclear weather report.
• My overall impression is that maybe a desysoping would have occurred had there not been an resignation... or maybe a firm admonishment. Depends on who the arbs were/are.
• We don't desysop people for using the term "asshole". It's decidedly not nice when used as a direct personal attack, though. Nor do we usually desysop an admin for being an asshole although someone would likely fail RfA for being an asshole.
• Commons and ENWP are really different beasts. A lot of users who are banned here or are otherwise in poor standing do fine over there.
• There are some very strongly expressed opinions in the discussion thread regarding that we should't resysop here. I would recommend those with such opinions to actually consider filing an arb case (no need to wait for crats to make their minds up).
• On clouds: makes more sense when it's an open and shut case. Admin wheel wars, resigns before arb case. Admin goes on wikibreak (no ANI threads), comes back later. When it's in between, I feel it's somewhat akin to crats ruling to desysop. If we, as crats, were to rule on a desysop like that, I'd rather do that by way of a more formal process, similar to an arb case. But that's not been defined as part of the job by the community. So I'd err on resysoping someone who may or may not be or been have desysoping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysoping if they so choose. Maxim_(talk) 01:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Maxim: Without commenting on the others, I disagree with your last point in particular. Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorised us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go. WJBscribe (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Maxim that ensuring there is sufficient time to evaluate this request is appropriate. There has been no question of identity or inactivity raised, so the only matter I see needing evaluation is if the resignation was for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. Community commentary towards that point is welcome below. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to wait another 24 hours, but I'm clear that the overnight contributions have not shown evidence that our bright lines were crossed to the extent that we should refuse a resysop. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging Crats active in July 2018: Wizardman, Warofdreams, Nihonjoe, MBisanz, Deskana, Avraham, Acalamari, 28bytes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:RESYSOP: "Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions," which has footnote #6: "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."

Now, that reads to me that if the admin resigns during an ArbCom case there is definitely a "cloud," but that does not mean if and only if. That there could be a cloud without an ArbCom case. So the question remains as to whether or not this particular situation is to be considered "under a cloud." To me the text "may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions" is where everything hinges. What we know is that Ymblanter did resign after some complaints. Was the resignation related to those complaints? It may have been. Would that scrutiny, had it continued, led to sanctions? "Sanctions", of course, broadly construed to encompass more than just a desysop - it could be any sanction. To me, it makes for a low bar of what "under a cloud" is. Unfortunately, I can't know exactly what would result in "sanctions" and what wouldn't. If the scrutiny continued and an ArbCom case was made, would ArbCom accept the case and give sanctions? I don't know. The wording in the policy includes "could have led to sanctions" but I would need ArbCom to say, "Yeah, that could have" or "No, that couldn't have" for me to know for sure, but I'm not afforded that luxury. Ergo, I would take the conservative approach and decline to resysop, but I could understand the opposite viewpoint, because having a low bar for "under a cloud" could easily result in false positives. Useight (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Useight I agree that the "sanctions" element could be any sanction, not just desysoping. I think some sort of sanction was possible, however I'm still determining if the resignation meets the "evading scrutiny" trigger or not. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing this discussion and the ANI discussion, I've come to the following conclusions:

• A lot of people are concerned about incivility on the part of Ymblanter. Based on reading some of the discussions, I think they are justified in that.
• There was no evidence presented (as far as I could tell) of any policy violations beyond violating WP:CIVIL.
• I could find no evidence of any Arbcom discussion specifically about Ymblanter (doing a search of the archives).
• In the desysop request, Ymblanter stated: I consistently got signals that some users do not trust me as administrator. and I do not feel I have sufficient community support to remain administrator

Looking through the criteria for resysopping, I find the following:

1. Former admin/account not compromised?  Y
2. Resigned to avoid possible sanctions due to their actions?  ?
3. Waited the required 24 hours after request?  Y
4. Not inactive for 3 years or more?  Y
5. Not administratively inactive for 5 years or more?  Y
6. List at WP:RESYSOPS if bit restored? Not relevant to this discussion yet.

So, the only one in question is whether the resignation was "under a cloud". As I interpret it, "under a cloud" is more whether a desysopping was imminent based on the various discussions. There was one discussion filed at the end of October 2017 where Fram suggested desysop as a possible outcome, but the request to accept the case was declined on 27 November 2017 with no specific Arbcom sanction comments or decisions directed toward Ymblanter in the closing decision). Therefore, I can see no specific evidence that a desysopping action was imminent, and so there was no "cloud". I therefore recommend returning the bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nihonjoe: the other principal being referenced here is the "under circumstances of controversy" statement from the 2009 Scientology ArbCom case - however I'm not confident that this principal has been codified in to general policy. This principal is broader then the evasion of scrutiny test. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've only spent fifteen minutes looking through this due to current workload, but my inclination is that the resignation did not take place under a cloud, by general understanding of the term; Nihonjoe summarises well. Besides, an admin resigning the bit because they do not feel able to do a good job and returning when they feel ready to seems something we should enable. Given the attention here, it's clear to me that Ymblanter is currently under scrutiny and their actions over the next period are likely to remain so, so this is not really a case of avoiding scrutiny. I support resysoping. Warofdreams talk 17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Warofdreams: I'm leaning towards the decision that the resignation did not preclude additional scrutiny of actions to continue. Please see my note to Nihonjoe above - any thoughts on if the "controversy" test is applicable? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it didn't prevent additional scrutiny. It might have dissuaded complainants from bothering, although Ymblanter did make clear when they resigned that they wished to leave open a path to return without a new RfA, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Warofdreams talk 18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Who would pursue sanctions against someone who had resigned already? What relief could they have obtained post-resignation? I don't think ArbCom would accept a case about admin misconduct in relation to someone who had resigned just to preclude them from asking for the return of the tools (although that may become a thing if we restore them this time). WJBscribe (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No. Broadly I agree with Useight. I have no intention of returning the tools, and would oppose other bureaucrats doing so. It is not for us to second guess what would have happened if complaints had been taking further. This is a resignation under controversial circumstances, plain and simple. Regaining the tools lies with the community through RfA, not with us. There has never been a requirement that a desysop was "imminent" and I would strongly object to adding that now. Our job as bureaucrats should be to return the tools in fairly uncontroversial circumstances, otherwise we should defer back to the community at RfA. I think it is also a mistake consider only whether a resignation was "for the purpose" of evading scrutiny, as opposed to whether it had that effect. Plainly, it seems to me that the complaints against Ymblanter would have been pursued further had he not resigned. Their ultimate outcome, I do not know. But in my view, the prevalence of those complaints regarding his conduct as an admin (reflected in the terms of his own resignation) mean that he resigned in controversial circumstances and it would be wrong of us to simply return the tools. WJBscribe (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Put a different way, someone who resigns because they "do not feel [they] have sufficient community support to remain administrator" ought to demonstrate it anew to regain the position. WJBscribe (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@WJBscribe: I'm leaning towards the resignation being "under circumstances of controversy" more so than evading scrutiny. That this element was held as important by the 2009 arbitration committee, but not explicitly included in the community managed policy is the only part I'm seeing as being left to interpretation. To that end I am not comfortable completing this request. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may not be important given your conclusion, but if the "evading scrutiny" test is applied too strictly, I'm not sure it would mean much. How does anything one does - short of exercising the right to vanish - avoid scrutiny on Wikipedia? In theory, any pre-resignation conduct can be pursued after someone resigns. The point is that few people will bother and that (to my mind) is the potential effect of a resignation that we need to consider, i.e. was the effect of the resignation to put people off pursuing complaints that are now stale. WJBscribe (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I've read the linked threads and everyone's comments so far. I understand the concerns people have raised about Ymblanter's behavior and agree that a new RFA would be ideal given those concerns, but I think that characterizing his resignation as "under a cloud" (or "under controversial circumstances," if you prefer) is not quite accurate, at least going by how we've traditionally interpreted that. Essentially an AN/I report didn't go his way, he felt disrespected, and turned in his tools. The language he chose to use upon resigning (i.e. regarding a perceived lack of community confidence in his adminning) doesn't trigger a cloud, in my view. That's not to say this is an easy call: there are compelling arguments being made on both sides. But ultimately if he wants his admin bit without a new RFA, I believe he's entitled to it. If it's granted I hope he will take everyone's concerns to heart. 28bytes (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• A couple of additional points:

• Determining that Ymblanter is eligible for resysopping under current policy (as seems likely at this point) does not mean that we necessarily think his behavior immediately prior to his resignation was optimal, or even acceptable. Our job as 'crats is generally not to evaluate admin-appropriate behavior; that's the community's job (when evaluating candidates at RFA) and ArbCom's (when considering the behavior of admins.)
• Resysopping Ymblanter does not mean all previously expressed concerns become null and void. Indeed, anyone is free to initiate an ArbCom case request immediately after the bit is flipped laying out these concerns; you will not find bureaucrats showing up at the case request page saying "oh no, this has already been decided." Determining eligibility for automatic resysopping is, by design, a different process than determining whether sanctions (including desysopping) are warranted for suboptimal behavior.
• (As an aside, I would suggest not immediately filing such a case request. Let's give Ymblanter a chance to take these concerns on board and see if he does so. If he does, great! If not, ArbCom will act if a solid case is made.)
• I do not think a policy change or clarification is needed. There will always be edge cases, and this is one. It's just not possible to policy-wrestle all borderline cases out of existence. It's not a bad thing to have bureaucrats and other interested community members discuss these borderline cases on this noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I've read the two threads linked here. It seems to me like Ymblanter resigned out of frustration and annoyance with the way people were treating him rather than to avoid scrutiny, and I see no evidence that any sanctions would have resulted had he not resigned. With respect to Ymblanter's resignation notice, I don't agree with WJBscribe that his resignation notice makes it a resignation under controversial circumstances. Ymblanter says he's resigning, in part, because there's "insufficient community support" for him to remain an administrator, but merely stating that doesn't make it true, it only makes it his interpretation. Looking at the discussions, I'd say that Ymblanter is wrong: there was clearly a small set of people that didn't have much confidence him, but that does not constitute "insufficient community support" to me, and Ymblanter's declaration that it does seems like a facet of his frustration. In summary, I don't see a resignation to avoid scrutiny or sanctions, so I think he fits the criteria to have his administrator rights restored. --Deskana (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Medical assistance is available for those who injure themselves laughing at the idea that, even when an admin himself declares that he's resigning because there's "insufficient community support" for him to remain an administrator, that's still not under a cloud, or to avoid scrutiny, because "stating that doesn't make it true". EEng 07:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I've been following this ever since it began and have been thinking where I stand on this. At the time Ymblanter resigned, I saw his post here and thought to myself back then that the resignation was under controversial circumstances and that a new RfA would be required. After some additional thinking, I'm still of that judgment now and my thoughts are similar to WJBscribe's. Acalamari 13:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Current Crat Summary

• Ayes

1. Dweller
2. Maxim
3. Nihonjoe
4. Warofdreams
5. Deskana
6. 28bytes

• Noes

1. Useight
2. WJBscribe
3. Xaosflux
4. Acalamari

As of: 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've [re]read everything on the page [again]. I've particularly carefully read the opinions of the Crats on the no side. WJB in particular makes some cogent arguments, as he so often does, but I remain unpersuaded. For me the lack of any sort of meaningful process likely to have ended in desysop is one part that is missing from what I'd need to be seeing. Our role here breaks down, in my mind, as follows: We must normally [inactivity aside] resysop without fuss, except that we must look for evidence that someone has gamed a community or committee process by resigning. I see complaints, I see some bad behaviour (by various users), I see some odd behaviour but I don't see something that looks like the start of what could reasonably be construed as desysop, so I think refusing this request is outside of our remit and would be stepping into Arbcom's.

That said, whatever we resolve, we must firm up our policy documentation on this once we've made a decision on this case. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dweller: with the latest 2 responses from Deskana an 28bytes the interpretation of those in the ayes is prevailing. I certainly agree that the resysop policy needs some improvement, notably if the "controversial" clause should be incorporated and its applicability. Suggest giving this ~12more hours for commentary before closure. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree with waiting a bit longer. 12 hours more is good as it'll pick up another cycle of US daytime activity. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but despite being on the "Yes" side of the fence, I'm hesitant to return the rights on the basis of a 6-4 decision. This is undoubtedly a grey area, and I'm worried about making decisions based on a narrow margin. How do the other bureaucrats feel about this? --Deskana (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Deskana: when I previously counted you twice I tallied us at 7/3 so the ayes were much stronger, with 6/4 we are getting back to the no-consensus range. Despite being a "no", I think some of the yes rationales are stronger arguments right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Deskana: there are strong arguments either way. "This is a cloud" or "This is not a cloud" is being said by a lot of people. What I don't want is for us to lower the bar of "cloud" too low because then people would be even more hesitant to temporarily resign the bit - even for reasons such as "I'm going to be out of the country for six months on an African safari" for fear that even some minor squabble (and admins can be expected to step on some toes) might end up constituting a cloud after all and they can't get the tools back without an RFA. For that reason, I'm okay with this gray area case going "resysop" instead of "decline", but I would not be surprised if a lot of drama ensued afterwards. That being said, I still decline to flip the switch. Useight (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux and Useight: Thank you both, and also to @SoWhy: below. You've alleviated my concerns about this. After waiting a little bit for comments from other bureaucrafts, I'd be happy to proceed, and don't mind ticking the box myself. --Deskana (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• We need need to firm up/clarify WP:RESYSOP. I've said this before. It's an information page, not policy. Where does the "evading scrutiny" language come from? (It was addedbyAvraham following a commentbyNewyorkbrad who was sitting on the committee at the time. He mentions a 2006 case. Does anyone know to which case he was referring? Giano perhaps?) It isn't (or shouldn't be) a bureaucrat's job to determine whether their actions at the time would (could?) have lead to sanctions. We should follow Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal (a policy page) and the arbitration rulings. These only mention resignation in "controversial circumstances". Were there controversial circumstances? (I realize this would cast a fairly wide net, but this is what the policy page says.) –xeno^talk 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

(non-bureaucrat comment) Strong support. I would contest implications that Ymblanter relinquished the flag under a cloud. If there are indeed users calling for desysop, let's have a proper discussion about it and go through the process. Alex Shih (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Personally pinging active bureaucrats that has yet to comment: Wizardman, MBisanz, Avraham. I tend to agree with what Risker said about being mindful of what kind of message we are sending. Alex Shih (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's a link to an Arb Case from the end of last year, with relevant info. Maybe Ymblanter could fully explain this edit summary from yesterday, noting that the link to the Arb Case clearly states - "E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not a personal attack (it was not directed to anyone personally) and not even an incivil behavior (this is an edit summary on my talk page, in a message which only concerns myself).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was a personal attack, but maybe you could answer the first bit and fully explain WHY you had to resort to using that word. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure why I need to explain this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

(non-anything comment) Agree with Alex Shih. I personally didn't think the complaints, such as they were, were resignation-worthy in the first place, but of course, it was their personal choice. The return of the tools, however, is a matter of process, and since no official complaints have ever been lodged, what obstacles, O officialdom, will ye cast?!—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No official complaints were registered because they resigned their tools. Rest assured there were plenty of complaints about their behaviour and fitness to be an administrator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Right—so after they get the tools back, any subsequent misuse of them can be investigated. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well as an editor who was the recipient of accusations of bullying by Ymblanter, who had to deal with their blatant obfuscation and deliberate refusal to answer simple questions over wikidata, if spitting the dummy after raising spurious ANI reports isnt under a cloud then its really a meaningless concept. I will quote from that discussion directly: "You must have been an entirely different editor then because you can't seem to understand what is wrong with your comments and responses now. Your total failure to communicate appropriately is a vital failure in your duty as an admin. (TheGracefulSlick)" to which the reply from Ymblanter was "At least you must be proud you have never voted for me." And this sort of interaction is standard for them. As is their abuse of other editors as can be seen in the above 'Asshole' diff. So I want it clear, if they have the tools back as a matter of process because the crats dont think their behaviour would amount to them being a process that could result in removal of their tools, then those tools are explicitly being given to someone who insults, condescends and belittles other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point of view, very much so, but wasn't the ANI closed as no consensus? I can't rember the RFAR, but was'nt that declined too? all I'm sayng is, if the community (such as it is!) nor arbcom saw a case, then, well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• (edit conflict) My understanding of this process is that the bureaucrats only have the mandate to judge whether or not the sysop bit was removed under a cloud. The mandate to determine whether a user is fit to use the tools lies with ARBCOM. As such, any posts here complaining about Ymblanter's conduct whether before or after they resigned their tools is quite irrelevant. Only evidence showing that they resigned under a cloud would be relevant. Certainly language they used a couple of days ago on their user talk page is not germane. Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Agreed. The only question is: Was there a process in motion at the time of the desysop that might have resulted in Ymblanter losing the sysop-flag (such as it was with Andrevan for example)? If not, there is no "cloud". Regards SoWhy 11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, the cloud over Ymblanter's lack of civility regarding WikiData and @Fram:, the related ArbCom case, this recent outburst, etc, are very worrying. I look forward to seeing exactly who he "demolishes" in the future. Basically, if this was a brand-new RfA, it would be snow close oppose. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was there any ArbCom case against Ymblanter or in which their actions were relevant and which could have resulted in a desysop? Afaict this was not the case. That a case might have been brought forward if he hadn't resigned the bit is not sufficient to establish "cloud" imho. As Spartaz points out, assuming cloudy circumstances should be limited to clear-cut cases to avoid creating hurdles for admins to give up the mop for a time. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Technically no, but Ymblanter did what most admins do when they're backed into a corner in a no-win situation, and resigned. Now the dust has settled, some people (thankfully not all, per below), seem to have forgotten this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason not to restore the bit, subject to our usual 24 hour wait period, so about 20 hours from now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I do not mind waiting longer if a discussion is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Having given up my bit during a period of personal turmoil when my judgement was impaired and successfully retrieving it when I felt better, I think its an important point that we don't create barriers that would discourage editors from acting similarly in the future. Otherwise, we simply create and environment when admins whose heads are not quite in the right place become reluctant to take a necessary break. (Obviously, this is a general comment as I have no idea whether or not this applies to Ymblanter but the general principle applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Spartaz, this wasn't a case of resigning due to personal turmoil etc; it was a clear-cut jump-before-push resignation, stemming from this ANI thread (which in turn stemmed from this thread). ‑ Iridescent 14:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• (non crat comment) I agree with SoWhy. Also, I think Ymblanter was not under any cloud when he resigned. There was a small incident, but i dont think it would have resulted in him being de-sysoped. But thats my opinion. I trust the crats that they will handle the request appropriately. I came here just to say, as a common community member, i do not have any problem with him being sysop again. (I dont keep an eye on ANI, i found out about the incident after his tools were taken away special:diff/826811999.) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) striked out my own comment, for now. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• (non-crat) The issue here seems to be what constitutes being under a cloud. If this is not sufficiently defined, then the crats do not have much leeway for interpretation, and may find it necessary to assume the absence of cloud until one can be shown to exist. If this happens, and there is sufficient disagreement by members of the community, then they can take whatever action they consider appropriate after the bit has been returned. Arbitration is the proper field of Arbcom. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Thankfully Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions is a bit more clear: "2. ...resigned... for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." I think there is a case to be made that Ymblanter evaded scrutiny when he resigned; however, I don't see an indication that he would have been desysopped or seriously sanctioned had he not done so. That said, the wording of the policy (could have led to sanctions) leans on the side of caution, so I could understand the argument against automatic resysop in this case. -- Ajraddatz (talk)

• I appreciate the bureaucrats' hands are tied, but as far as I'm concerned this was clearly under a cloud; he resigned to prevent being desopped owing to the abuse of his admin status, as documented in this ANI thread. (The thread was actually him complaining about being challenged for abuse; because of his resignation, it never got any further so the written evidence is flimsy, but most of it can be found just by ctrl-f'ing his name at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 202#RfC: Linking to wikidata. I wasn't involved in either thread in any way—other than a single vote in the RFC and a passing comment that we rarely include links to Commons in article body text—before anyone tries accusing me of being WP:INVOLVED.)

  For those who aren't aware, this resysop request isn't a genuine "I'm feeling better and I'm ready to help", it's a WP:POINT exercise arising from criticism of Ymblanter and his supporters at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#EEng and canvassing. As a heads-up to the crats and arbs, if this request is granted then as soon as I see any more of the bullying, blustering, and general "I'm an admin, that means policy doesn't apply to me and I can do whatever I like" attitude that caused Ymblanter to resign in the first place, I'll be off to Arbcom with a formal desysop motion (assuming Fram doesn't beat me to it). ‑ Iridescent 14:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is no abuse of admin status in the linked thread. There were concerns whether my behavior is appropriate for an administrator, and I do not see how the thread could have resulted in a desysop.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  It is of course up to you to go to ArbCom once I get the bit back.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Ymblanter, there's clearly documented evidence of you abusing your position and saying that the admin bit meant your opinions were more worthwhile than those of other editors. Incidentally, as nobody else seems to have mentioned it, just to point out that it's less than three weeks since you were making comments like "I will demolish you next time you are in trouble. Because you have just proven that your promises are worth of exactly one pound of dogshit". Bluntly, the only way you're going to get the admin bit is if you bluster your way here at BN into getting the 'crats to unilaterally restore it, since someone coming to RFA or in front of Arbcom with a record like yours would be lucky to avoid an indefblock once your history came under scrutiny, let alone any advanced permissions. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Great. It is definitely your right to think that I should be indefblocked. I do not think you are in a majotiry though.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Greater yet if you didn't resume the problematic aspect of your past behavior qua admin (described and linked to in this thread). Then nobody will have to report you anywhere and, more importantly, your having the tools will be a net-benefit to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  That↑; note that I said if I see any more of the bullying, blustering, and general "I'm an admin, that means policy doesn't apply to me and I can do whatever I like" attitude. If there's no bullying or abuse, then you've nothing to worry about. Based on past performance I'd estimate the likelihood of that at roughly zero, but WP:AGF and all that. ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  (ec) I think my strategy would be just not to ever respond to a number of users, some of whom are in this thread, because this is exclusively what lead to this problematic behavior, and nothing good ever came out of it. This was also the advise I got from some users I respect, and I regret to not have followed it two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I suppose, all things being equal, and with due regard to AGF, that an unspoken concern might be that, as a hypothetical chain of events- >involvement in big argument at Commons AN- >You stating that t I am not happy with a large amount of users clearly coming here from en.wp who are all voting support- >you regain your tools on en-wp, and- >you then use your tools aganst those heer who, in your view, caused unnecessary trouble on Commons. However: It strikes me that a) you probably know this already, and b) it would be so bloody obvious that, in the vernacular, your feet wouldn't touch the ground. But that's in a dystopian future, this is now, and I don't think it does us much good to speculate. Just to await the results as they come in. If, of course they ever do. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I see that it might be a concern, but I have been admin here for several years, I was I believe in the 100 most active admins of all times or so, and I have never used tools against anybody with whom I disagreed, with the exception of vandals and newly created disruptive users.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Ymblanter, I have no personal issue with you, and no criticism of your use of the tools, but you do have a history of not handling criticism gracefully. If you have indeed learned how to better handle these situations, this would be a fine place to demonstrate those skills. Or just go away and wait to see what happens. I will also suggest that if you make yourself open to recall, with a limitation of a period of at least 3 months before a recall can be initiated, it might go some way towards showing that you mean what you say, and give you 3 months to show that you can do it. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  When I ran RFA, I said that I do not need to be open for recall, since once I feel that there is a large group of users unhappy with my administrative activities I would resign. This is precisely what I did in January. I kind of thought it would be taken positively, thet I can keep to my words. Apparently, by these very users it was taken as a sign of weakness and that I was avoiding scrutiny. Fine, I can put myself open to recall, but we already have at least one user who promised to take me to ArbCom minutes after I get the flag back - what would be the point of being open to recall in this situation? Though, sure, if a group of users becomes again unhappy with my administrative activities, I will resign - well, we can formalize it as a promise to be open to recall say in three months. I heed community support for being administrator, and I do not see any point of remaining administrator without a community support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  A formal promise to be open to recall is not really a formal anything since there is no formal recall process. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I can't find the words "recall" or "resign" in your request for administrative privileges, so I'm not sure what you promised at the time. (I imagine, though, if you used a word similar to resign, it would have been interpreted as a relinquishing of administrative privileges effective until you successfully passed another RfA.) Given that you felt in January that the community no longer supported your having administrative privileges, is your current request due to your feeling that the level of community support has changed now, because you feel you misjudged the level of support that was present then and now (something easily done in the midst of contentious events), or something else? isaacl (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Ymblanter, if you're going to tell lies then your own resysop request is probably not the best place to be doing it. Do you have a diff for we already have at least one user who promised to take me to ArbCom minutes after I get the flag back, or are you making it up in the hope of playing the martyr? I'm assuming the latter, since I'm sure if anyone had made such a promise it would be evidence in your favor, as it would mean you were telling the truth in implying that you're being subjected to unfair treatment. (What you do have is a promise from me that I'll be filing an arb case against you should I see a pattern of abuse from you following any resysopping. In my personal opinion, the likelihood that you'll go back to conduct unbecoming is high enough to make a subsequent case near-inevitable, but I assume you aren't promising that if and when you're granted the admin bit you'll carry on with the inappropriate behavior.) ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I actually meant this diff. Are you saying I interpreted it incorrectly, and you meant that not you will initiate desysop proceedings minutes after I get the bit back, but somebody else? That's possible, but probably needs to be clarified.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Yes you are right Isaacl, I want through the whole nomination page, and I do not see the statement. It is also not on the talk page. I must have done it about the time of nomination elsewhere, but now I will obviously not be able to find it. therefore I have striken out this part of my statement as factually incorrect. I apologize for that. However, this is how I felt all the time, from my first day here, and this is how I still feel. Concerning your second question, I feel I misjudged the level of support in January (though it might have gone down since January, but I do not have a good feeling for this, since I obviously did not use my admin bit).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  If you truly see no point of being an administrator without community support, as you say, there's a way to prove definitively whether you have it. —Cryptic 00:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• (Non-administrator comment) The simplest solution here is for Ymblanter to voluntarily file a new WP:RFA. Apart from the comments of Iridescent and Lugnuts (and Lugnuts' valid concerns regarding this diff are technically out of scope), I don't see support to force a re-confirmation vote; but I do feel it would set a good precedent for the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • While there are plenty more comments opposing a re-sysop, I don't see stronger arguments. As NeilN notes below, the only possible "cloud" appears to come from this diff. A resignation based on that seems more like an over-reaction to mild criticism than an attempt to avoid scrutiny. If there are other diffs from before January 18, please provide them. While it would avoid a significant amount of drama for Ymblanter to re-RFA, I still don't see any reason for bureaucrats to deny this request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I suggest we hat the above discussion, which perhaps I am partially guilty of starting, and actually—radical!—give the crats their board back and hear from them, collectively. Notwithstanding future RfAs, most of the discussion here is around what might have happened in the past, what's happened elsewhere, and what might happen in the future; none of which seems to have uncovered anything useful. Actually, the simplest solution would be to resysop and then haulage to Arbcom if it goes pear-shaped. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• New RFA please - this is relevant. Please don't re-sysop, Ymblanter resigned before being desysopped per this [2]. That doesn't happen without good reason. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• This really does require a new RfA. The way that this request arose from the dispute at Commons reflects very badly on this request. And to parse the previous step-down as not under a cloud is being too literal by far: the request statement itself is based upon the acknowledgement that there were problems. It wasn't at all like the typical "I've decided that I don't need the tools anymore and I want some time off from being an admin." I'm pretty certain that a pro forma resysop here will lead directly to a case at ArbCom resulting in a desysop, so please spare the community from having to go through all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• The evidence here is quite clear that Ymblanter resigned in order to avoid scrutiny that was likely to lead to sanctions. Whether one of those sanctions would have been a desysop with requirement to file a new RfA to be resysopped, we don't and can't know, but we do know what he said, the complaints that were filed concerning what he said, and his action in response to those complaints, that is, to resign. This all adds up to a "cloud" - i.e. he did not out of the blue decide to set aside the bit for personal or professional reasons, he did so in relationship to complaints about his behavior. This is an extremely reasonable definition of what "under a cloud" means.
  Further, examination of the relevant discussions over on Commons leads one to believe that the request for getting the bit back isn't being done out of a desire to help en.wiki -- in fact, Ymblanter made some quite disparaging remarks about en.wiki in those discussions, which would certainly be held against him in a formal RfA -- but in an "I'll show you" way that is quite inappropriate for an admin.
  I urge the bureaucrats not to act precipitously here, and to take into account the opinions of admins and long-time established editors that Ymblanter should be required to undergo an RfA to recover the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• This is definitely under a cloud, and Ymblanter's recent behavior at Commons demonstrates that nothing has changed. A resysop will doubtless be followed by either an ArbCom case or a site ban discussion on one of the noticeboards. Lepricavark (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose re-sysop. This definitely needs a new RfA. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I would hate to see Dweller or any other individual bureaucrat to bear the sole responsibility if the flag was restored. There is no precedent for this, but can a bureaucrat chat be opened? Exercising discretion in this kind of situation should still be within the role of the bureaucrats collectively when the community consensus is not immediately clear. Alex Shih (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• (non-bureaucrat comment) This is a matter for the bureaucrats to deliberate and they can handle it in any way they choose. They can certainly do this by disregarding all or any of the non bureaucrat comments at WP:BN if they wish - it's their page, their mandate, whatever comments by non bureaucrats here or at ANI may conclude. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I don't understand your point. Of course the decision lies with the 'crats, I don't see anyone here arguing that it doesn't. Are you saying that it's not legitimate for members of the community to make their views known to them? As far as I know, there's no requirement or necessity for bureaucratic decisions to be made in a vacuum, without community input. The role of the bureaucrat is not to make decisions in "splendid isolation", or to rely only on their own feelings and those of their fellow 'crats. They should also take into account the feelings of community members.
  After all "under a cloud" is not necessarily a cut-and-dried thing, we rely on the good judgment of the bureaucrats to evaluate what is and isn't "a cloud", but they are just people with no super-powers (that I'm aware of), and people of good judgment, when called upon to make such decisions, frequently want to know how others feel about it, to inform and guide their own decision-making.
  So, what, exactly, is your point? That everyone should shut up about this issue? I'd say rather that more people should chime in, to give the bureaucrats as rounded an understanding of how the community feels as possible. Then they can make their decision taking that into account, as is proper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I honestly do not know whether the resignation was under a cloud. I have read all of the arguments and neither side is obviously wrong. Given the number of editors on each side, I would like to see this decided at a crat chat rather than having one crat make the decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I agree. A decision made by a single bureaucrat without formal consultation between the 'crats would be the worst possible outcome, no matter which way the decision went. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Maxim: Regarding your sixth bullet point:

  There are some very strongly expressed opinions in the discussion thread regarding that we should't resysop here. I would recommend those with such opinions to actually consider filing an arb case (no need to wait for crats to make their minds up).

I'm not quite sure what, exactly, you mean here. If you mean that someone should file a peremptory desysop case with ArbCom before Ymblanter has been resysopped by bureaucratic action, I doubt very much that ArbCom would accept that case. I think Ymblanter would have to be resysopped and then a desysop case filed for ArbCom to even consider taking it, and that case would have to be about the complaints filed against Ymblanter just before he resigned, which are rather stale right now, so, again, there would be a prejudice against taking such a case. The only other desysopping grounds I can see is that the resysopping itself was wrong, because the standard used for "under a cloud" was incorrect -- but (as far as I know) ArbCom has no jurisdiction over bureaucratic actions, so it's unlikely they would accept a case on that basis either. So, unless I'm misunderstanding (which is certainly possible) I don't think that bulllet point is particularly helpful to anyone opposed to Ymblanter being resysopped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I would suggest that 'under a cloud' should be a very low bar and the wording of the policy seems to bear that out. A resysop should be uncontroversial and one would be so if the tools were resigned when an administrator's behavior and suitability was not the subject of an ongoing controvercy ie the community's confidence in the administrator was not being activly called into question.
  In this instance that is not the case; in fact the lack of confidence of a significant body of editors was cited in the desysop request and there was ongoing discussion of Ymblanter's behavior at the time of his desysop request that was, at least in part, curtailed as a result of him turning in his tools. That he made a point of claiming that the desysop was not 'under a cloud' in the original request leads me to believe he recognized others would see it as being 'under a cloud' and wanted to pre-empt those claims. Jbh ^Talk 03:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC) PS. Footnote #6 of RESYSOP uses the phrase "under circumstances of controversy". Last edited: 05:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Of course it's under a cloud. The very fact that Ymblanter can apparently, with a straight face, suggest that it's not is in and of itself evidence of his abysmal judgment and unfitness to be an admin.

If your fitness is being questioned you have two choices: stick around and see the process through, or leave under a cloud; there's no middle ground. It's not like there's ever some urgent need to resign. Wait until it's over and if you survive, then resign if you want; if you don't survive, well then you've been saved the trouble of resigning.

If your fitness is being questioned and you have the decency to spare the community the trouble of deciding whether to desysop you, then we appreciate the gesture, but that doesn't buy you a free pass later as if nothing happened. EEng 03:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• There should be a new RfA so the community can decide. Jonathunder (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• This is basically Gaming the system. Ymblanter resigned to avoid a desysop and now he wants to come back like nothing happened? If he is just given back his admin status, we're setting a very bad precedent. It would give people a reason to continue with desyop cases even after the person resigned. I don't see how that would be beneficial. I only have had one interaction with ymblanter and it wasn't positive, so I'd definitely would have to question his temperament to be an admin. Regardless, the only fair way of dealing with his request is to make him have another RFA. If he has behaved appropriately as an admin, he should have no problem passing another RFA. Although, I don't want to start an off-topic discussion here, we should seriously consider changing the system. Rather than just simply being "admin for life", admins should have to go through re-certification votes periodically. Doing so would probably eliminate 80-90% of the admin abuse complaints we have.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• @Maxim: I think that you're misreading the "under a cloud" part of WP:RESYSOP, as quoted by Xaosflux: the situation could have led to sanctions and that matches criterion #2 as worded. You don't need to decide that there would have been sanctions, just that it was a reasonable possibility. Similarly, the criterion #2 footnote implies that the appropriate standard is whether they left under circumstances of controversy. From your comment (2nd, 3rd, and final bullet points) I think you're focusing too much on what the outcome would have been, which I agree this isn't the place to evaluate. In other words, a case of "resignation + unclear weather report" would indeed be sufficient justification to decline a resysop, as long as you think a desysop (or other sanction) was a plausible outcome. This is also consistent with the idea (as codified in the footnote) that resigning while an Arb case is pending constitutes "under a cloud" by default, even though it might very well have closed without action. Sunrise (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let me comment again on this, since multiple people suggest I lie, I was gaming the system, and/or I resigned in view of an immediate desysop. Well, I never lie. I never ever lie. I do sometimes have communication problems, and this one (to be cited as "the link" is a clear example - which sometimes led people to believe I lied. But still, I never lie. This is very important for me. Second, nobody ever demonstrated that I misused the tools - meaning, for example, blocked someone in a COI, or protected an article in a COI, or whatever. During the whole time, only a few of the thousands of my administrative actions were contested. So essentially we are discussing not what I have done with the tools but what I said. Now, concerning "the link" - prior to what happened, an ArbCom was filed against me -- for the first time in my life here. I thought it has no merit, and it was indeed resolved by motion in which all administrators were reminded to remain civil and obey the policies - with which I obviously agree. On the aftermath of these Wikidata discussions I has a clash with Fram, which resulted in me going to ANI ("the link"). I actually can not recollect until today being dragged to AN or ANI with the exception of a couple of POV pushers who got boomerang-blocked. If we go to "the link" we see that a number of users have strong opinions, but I do not see anybody suggesting a second Arb case. I resigned because I thought these opinions were too many (and I believe now I underestimated my support), however, I did not reasonably believe at the time, and I do not believe now, that if I stayed admin a desysop case would be filed against me on the basis of what I have done/said at the moment. Well, I see here that many users do not want me to be administrator, and this is unfortunate, if I get the tools I obviously will have to deal with that, but I felt necessary to make this statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I never ever lie. Of course you do. Everybody lies sometimes. "You look great in that dress." "No, I'm not upset." "Yes, everything's fine." "I meant to take the garbage out but I forgot." What planet are you from? EEng 06:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, no, I do not. I even get issues about that with my parents who expect to hear smth and sometimes do not. My wife already got used to it.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here, pass this on to your wife and see if she gets the humor in it: It is more grueling to live with a saint than to be one. You still haven't answered the question: what planet are you from? EEng 13:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify: while the above is presented in my patented "humorous" style (note the quote marks), it makes a completely serious point: someone who claims (or even worse, actually believes) that he "never lies" evinces a disconnect from the reality of human experience so severe that it disqualifies him from any position of trust, particularly one in which he's expected to evaluate the actions and motives of others. EEng 13:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I can not help you here. If I am denied resysop on this ground let it be. You are welcome to suggest a policy amendment in the meanwhile though, for example that someone who never lies can not be administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

QED. EEng 13:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This childish bickering reflects poorly on you. --Deskana (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's true, YMblanter, this childish bickering reflects poorly on you. EEng 07:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, and my statement is that I have not given the bit in order to avoid scrutiny. That was not at all my motivation.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support resysop--Wot SN54129 sez:--Notwithstanding future RfAs, most of the discussion here is around what might have happened in the past, what's happened elsewhere, and what might happen in the future; none of which seems to have uncovered anything useful. Actually, the simplest solution would be to resysop and then haulage to Arbcom if it goes pear-shaped. I see zero relevance in the commons-stuff and I don't believe an Arbcom-case will lead to anything more than an admonishment, despite the verbosity and vocal strength of a particularly-oriented Wikidata camp.That being said, YmB ought to handle criticism much better.∯WBG^converse 05:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

On that logic, there is no need for the RfA process for anyone. Just give an editor the admin rights, without process, and wait until they mess up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are comparing an admin requesting the return of the toools with a new editor asking for the first time...? Err...right. I note the ironly in your call upon logic :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Who said anything about a new editor? Use the example of Little Johnny has been an editor for a long time, who might have made some mistakes in the past, and might do something bad in the future. But they've been around long enough to know how things work. No need for an RfA! Straight to admin for you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Little Johnny huh. He may be some seriously big-time syndicate mouthpiece  :) but not on en-wp. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support resysop I'm not in love with Ymblanter's behavior, but there's no atypical cloud here. If bureaucrats are unsure of a decision, they should probably crat-chat. Inviting the public to comment, all in good faith of course, is irrelevant here, when the crats are here to do the job. If we want discussions, perhaps opening a crat-chat and publicising the same in the same way one would publicise an RfA, might be a good option. Lourdes 10:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Commenting narrowly: The bureaucrats will do what they will when it comes to a determination of a "cloud". As a group, they tend to be very reluctant to deny a resysop request, so I think the Committee's approach to arbitration should be robust to mistakes in determining whether an administrator's resignation had the effect of dodging scrutiny. If an administrator resigns and is later resysopped despite there being substantial concerns about their behavior (administrative or otherwise) prior to their resignation, I would view their actions immediately prior to the resignation as being "fresh" for the purposes of arbitration. I would not decline such an arbitration case request as "stale", because to do so would effectively allow administrators to dodge community concern by resigning if bureaucrats later found them not to be under a cloud. Further, if an administrator resigned immediately prior to a likely arbitration case request, I would encourage that case request to proceed, so the Arbitration Committee has the opportunity to designate their resignation as "under a cloud" by motion while the conduct is still recent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• xaosflux says we are invited to determine if the bit was given up "for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." Personally I have no reason to question Ymblanter's judgment or capability as an administrator, but I do believe that the bit was given up during those discussions to evade the kind of scrutiny that could have led to sanctions, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Drmies: the determination part is what us 'crats have to decide - but I am certainly welcome to community input to ensure we have all the right information to proceed. Just clarifying that I was not asking for any sort of "vote" by the community on this question. Thank you for your feedback. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I'm feeling you, Xaosflux--good luck with it. This may not be an easy call. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  It's worth noting that you're answering a more difficult question than needed, Drmies. It's extremely hard to say whether Ymblanter intended to evade scrutiny. Luckily, we don't have to answer that. The policy states they should not be resysopped if their resignation had the effect of evading scrutiny, which is perhaps an easier question to answer, since it doesn't delve into motivations at all. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Ha, I thought about commenting on that in the first place, and so now I will: I believe that was the intent, and I think it was pretty clear that was the effect. :) Drmies (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Without commenting on the specifics of this case (I'm only familiar with the ANI thread I closed, not anything else), I think it is useful to view WP:RESYSOP in terms of WP:ADMINACCT: did the resignation have the impact of making it so an admin was no longer accountable for his actions (either through a case request or other community review?) If the answer is yes then RESYSOP would have it be "under a cloud" if the answer is no then it isn't cloudy. I disagree with what I think Maxim's implication is that the crats are being asked to determine if ArbCom would desysop. That's not the relevant question: the question is if the community was prevented from holding the admin to reasonable scrutiny by the resignation. That's my 2¢ for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @TonyBallioni, did the resignation have the impact of making it so an admin was no longer accountable for his actions isn't actually all that relevant. WP:RESYSOP is by necessity an executive summary of policy, not the policy itself. The process as currently used derives from a 2009 ruling by Arbcom, and is the much broader Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. Obviously, "given up for the purpose of evading scrutiny" is prima facie evidence of "controversial circumstances" and makes the closing crat's life easier, but the controversy could theoretically be entirely unintentional but would still exist. If we don't consider a resignation in which the desysop request began In the past few months, I consistently got signals that some users do not trust me as administrator. It was particularly prominent yesterday, when an ANI topic was speedy closed with a consensus that it is ok to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, and when later an admin wrote in a casual conversation (not with me) that I must be "shown the door". In this situation, given the absence of instruments which provide proper feedback to administrators, I do not feel I have sufficient community support to remain administrator. to be "controversial circumstances", then I'm at a loss to consider what would be; a resysop in these circumstances wouldn't be applying the rules conservatively, as some have stated above, it would be the bureaucrats unilaterally overturning an Arbcom ruling and daring the community to challenge them. ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  ​Thanks for your usual institutional knowledge. Based on that ArbCom principle, I would agree with your reading of the resignation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  One thing I'd say, though, is that what Ymnblanter says, and his perception of the situation is the equivalent of a primary source: we don't actually know that his understanding of what was actually happening is a reflection of the circumstances. I mean; Nixon thought that the president of Otis Elevators was out to get him—but no-one takes that as a historical source on the role of CEOs! As NeilN points out, the question is whether other people were saying the same things; well—that's the secondary source. And, although irl jurisdiactions vary, it's generally deemed ill-advised to base a convicton upon just a confession  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I don't. If a couple months go by without someone telling me that I'm a disgrace as an admin and should resign then I probably haven't been that active here. I'm aware of this criticism. Does this mean any potential future resignations will be under controversial circumstances? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @NeilN: If said criticism becomes significant enough that you "do not feel [you] have sufficient community support to remain administrator" and as a result resign, then yes. That would signify the criticism either rises above or is by the resigning sysop perceived to rise above the usual level of criticism admins—especially admins willing to make difficult decisions—sadly have to deal with. It's not the existence of criticism in and of itself that makes this (at least, in my opinion) controversial. There'll probably always be people willing to take sysops to task over any (perceived) wrongdoing, whether rightfully or not. That's not a reliable sign said sysop is doing anything wrong any more than being the target of a personal attack is a reliable sign of said targetted editor (sysop or otherwise) doing something wrong. Rather, what makes it controversial to me is the cited absence of sufficient community support to remain administrator. Now, is it possible that Ymblanter perceived that to be the case while in fact still having more than sufficient community support? Certainly. The only way to tell for sure, however, would be a reconfirmation RfA. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Iridescent: It seems a nearly exact wording was invoked at least a month prior in another case. I'm not sure if there's an earlier example in arbitration. Killiondude (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Drmies highlights the core of this issue. Looking at the discussion above the only relevant link I spotted was this one. In that discussion, I see no posts indicating Ymblanter will be taken to Arbcom or their edits will be put forth for further scrutiny. There was a lot of "this complaint has no merit and should be closed" but that's not the same as "I will be asking Arbcom/the community if you're fit to be an admin". It is entirely possible that I'm missing a diff. If I am, can someone please point it out? Otherwise, I don't think "avoiding scrutiny" applies here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Exactly my point. And, to add to this, no one of the users in that discussion, I believe, has ever been to my talk page (except for Fram).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  And I had quite a few people on my talk page after my resignation suggesting I should ask the tools back - obviously meaning they did not regard my resignation as under a cloud.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Poor arguement really, as just as many people would think the exact opposite, but are wise enough not to state what they really think of you on your talkpage, and you taking the easy way out, for fear of repercussions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I think the crats need to have a separate conversation to reach a consensus on whether a resysop is possible here. Meanwhile, those who had complaints about Ymblanter's administrative conduct, and possibly eased off on proceeding any further with their grievance, should consider resuming the process if they feel strongly about it. Mkdw ^talk 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• In a direct reply to Xaosflux above about the "evading scrutiny" trigger, I feel like that is in the resignation itself. At the time of resignation, Ymblanter admits himself that he "consistently got signals that some users do not trust [him] as administrator" and that "given the absence of instruments which provide proper feedback to administrators, [he did not] feel [that he had] sufficient community support to remain administrator." This says to me, despite whether or not a desysop was pending or not, that there was some active level of scrutiny taking place that he resigned over. Regardless of his intent, any complaints about his use of tools or competence to have them are chilled because of it. I think the fair thing to do, Ymblanter, would be to close this discussion by taking back the request and starting a new RFA. You said over your time as administrator only a few actions were challenged and that your record is fairly flawless in that aspect. If you truly feel that, then enough of the community will pass you to regain the tools. If it doesn't pass, then passing another new RFA is the only method of getting them back and this whole conversation won't have to be had again. Take into consideration that if you don't feel like you would pass a new RFA, then you shouldn't be asking for the tools back. — Moe Epsilon 18:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• ThisisNo cloud IMO, but it's up to you bureaucrats. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• A suggestion that this resysopping would result immediately in some kind of case to remove Ymblanter's tools a) isn't actually likely, and b) would actually be the proper process anyway. WP:BN isn't ArbCom. If there's not clearly a cloud, then BN doesn't have a reason not to resysop, even if 'Crats suspect the ex-admin is likely to end up in hot water that leads to a desysop later (and articulating such a suspicion would be an AGF failure). This is important process distinction, not bureaucracy. (I say this as someone who would support a desysop if the old behavior resumed, without predicting that it will; indeed, one would have to assume some kind of CIR problem to make such a prediction.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • @SMcCandlish, nobody except Ymblanter has actually said that "this resysopping would result immediately in some kind of case to remove Ymblanter's tools". What I actually said was if this request is granted then as soon as I see any more of the bullying, blustering, and general "I'm an admin, that means policy doesn't apply to me and I can do whatever I like" attitude that caused Ymblanter to resign in the first place, I'll be off to Arbcom with a formal desysop motion; note the if. In this particular instance I'm A'ing very little GF, but what I am assuming is that the knowledge that he's under scrutiny might mean he'll at the very least tone down the school bully routine for a while until he thinks people have stopped watching. ‑ Iridescent 22:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think you've read the entire discussion, Iridescent, e.g. Lepricavark's "A resysop will doubtless be followed by either an ArbCom case or a site ban discussion on one of the noticeboards." If I were taking issue with your posts in particular, I would have said so. I'm addressing the overall tenor of the anti- side of the discussion and the rationales being offered, and in particular the idea that it's BN's job to adjudicate such a "questioned admin behavior" matter, which it definitely is not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• What message is being sent here? The message I'm reading is that those with advanced permissions shouldn't even temporarily hand in bits, even if they don't want the responsibilities that go with them for a period, because there will always be people who were unhappy with them when they had those bits. It deprecates the idea that anyone should take a break from being an admin, or whatever. This is a net negative. When admins feel the need to step away from those responsibilities for a while, they should be encouraged to do so, not punished. I'm very concerned about the impression I am getting that some 'crats feel it is appropriate to essentially re-run an RFA via proxy on this noticeboard, or alternately to create an enforced desysop process that has explicitly been rejected by the community. Give him back the bits; if he screws up, it's Arbcom's job to determine whether or not to desysop. Of all the concerns that anyone may have about Arbcom, the one thing they've been pretty consistently effective in has been removing the bits when they need to be removed. Risker (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, there clearly is a cloud over this editor "resigning", per all this (lenthy) debate. Other admins who've resigned from their post, only to request it back, are mainly down to inactivity, or some off-wiki real-world work that prevents them from being an admin for X amount of time. If this is restored, then either the Crats here a) don't care about the blow-black b) aren't applying WP:COMMONSENSE or c) like to make more work for themselves with the ArbCom case that will result from that action. Ymblanter said one of the main reasons for handing back the bit, was to focus on more content editing. I guess that was a lie, from someone who claims they don't lie. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Risker, it's chalk and cheese. This isn't a case of someone temporarily handing in the bits because they temporarily don't want the responsibilities that go with them for a period, this is someone who explicitly resigned because the community had lost confidence in them. If that doesn't constitute "under a cloud", then I don't see how anything short of actually resigning during an arb case ever could be. ‑ Iridescent 06:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

To be precise: Again, your links only show that it was Ymblanter who said the "community had lost confidence in them"—not the community. The odd thing is that there's usually a resistance to back-door desysoppings.

On a lighter note, who ever said that Bureaucrats don't earn their pay...—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's a strange reading of the situation. I think it's excessive to take this specific case and extrapolate such a general principle out of it. Yes, all admins probably have a few critics, but not as many as Ymblanter. If your interpretation is valid, then how come most resysop requests are uncontroversial? In my opinion, the message being sent here is that when a former admin who has lost the confidence of a large portion of the community requests a resysop, there is going to be a pushback. Lepricavark (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

One of the points here, is who constitutes a large portion of the community? Ten people who have had previous disagreements? Some percentage of the active editing community? A majority of those who have noticed the resysop request because this page is on their watchlists? Some other arbitrary figure? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't matter about the numbers. Most policy and guidelines on here are written by a handful of people who discuss them, before becoming long-standing WP ways of working. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose- for the poor behaviour around the Wikidata controversy. Ymblanter kept using his admin status to pull rank in order to win disputes, as well as interpreting disagreement as a deliberate attempt to provoke him. I think there's enough temperament-rlated questions that it should go to RfA. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support giving Ymblanter the bit back. Whether he is a good admin or not is irrelevant. Whether he is going to maybe possibly subsequently end up getting desysopped down the line is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it's not the bureaucrats job to have to make that kind of decision, and it's unfair to put them in that position. Did Ymblanter clearly cede his access to the tools specifically to evade scrutiny of his actions that could have led to sanction? Not clearly. Therefore he should get the bit back, and any desysopping can be sorted out definitively by Arbcom, who are supposed to manage this kind of thing. Oh and I also agree with Risker; making it harder for admins to temporarily give up their tools and get them back is going to result in less admins being willing to temporarily give up their tools. Fish+Karate 09:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Since Deskana mentions it in the crat chat above, I think the question should not be whether a 6-4 vote is enough consensus to resysop but instead whether a 4-6 vote is sufficient to permanently remove the tools. Because, as has been pointed out above, not returning the tools in "unclear" situations will effectively mean the crats decide whether someone should be permanently desysopped and I cannot find anything in policy anywhere that supports crats having the right to make this decision. So imho, if there is no consensus not to deny the resysop, the tools should be handed back ("in dubio pro resysop"). As this discussion proves, Ymblanter's actions will be closely monitored and adequate relief be sought if necessary anyway. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Admittedly, this is a tough situation for the Crats to resolve, but whether one regards it as 6/4 or 4/6, it's clear that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the right approach to take. Under such circumstances, I think that "first, do no harm" is a good principle – but then the question is which action does less harm, and that's no easy question. I don't think that it necessarily defaults to taking the most pro forma path. If, for example, that means to resysop with the clear knowledge that it is likely that the community will generate an ArbCom case and then have to go through the process of such a case, culminating in a new RfA, that seems like asking the community to jump through an awful lot of hoops only to end up in the same place as having a new RfA now. On the other hand, stepping back in favor of a new RfA now, puts the decision in the hands of the community, which is where I think it ought to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Your example requires tools crats do not possess. Regards SoWhy 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • As I said, I appreciate how difficult this is, and I'm looking for how to "first, do no harm". I realize that none of us has a crystal ball (to which you blue-linked), but I'm not asking for that. And it's really not worth arguing about how likely or unlikely an ArbCom case is going to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Crat chats aren't votes, and restoring the tools only requires a single crat thinking it is the right response, not a majority. Granted, Crats tend to take other Crat's opinions to heart (and that is a good thing). I don't have a problem with a Crat reinstating the tools. Anyone is free to file at Arb if they think it is necessary. I do not think "cloud" means that severe action by Arb is "possible", and instead means "probable". We can't ask Crats to second guess what Arb will accept or not accept, as that is even more erratic than what they will desysop for. Without a bright line offense (wheel warring, etc) is would seem that reinstating the tools is well within policy, and expectations for Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Personally, I don't believe "evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions", as is stated in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions, implies that sanctions were probable. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
• If Ymblanter was stupid enough to resign without making it clear that he intended it not to be seen as under a cloud, then it's his own goddam fault, and you'd think someone entrusted by the community to use special tools responsibly would have the sense to think of that. It's incredible we're spending all this time to salvage membership for someone in a club which (a) is for the community's benefit, not the "member's" and (b) we're always saying is not a big deal. EEng 15:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  (S)he literally said during the resignation this is not a resignation under a cloud, so it was obviously not intended to be seen as under a cloud. Useight (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

He was hardly going to say that it was a cloud, was he? That's like saying that if you're up in court for a crime and saying you didn't do it, everyone goes home at that point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, Useight is right. I somehow missed that bit of Ymblanter's request all this time, and I eat my words and apologize. I have to say that I find it very awkward that apparently (as seen in the subsequent discussion of Ymblanter's request for removal of privileges -- see below) it's considered appropriate to delay the "cloud" determination until a request for restoration of privileges is made -- that strikes me as backwards and it seems obvious to me that the time to do that is at the time the privileges are removed, when everything's fresh in the mind. Anyway, I'm not sure that the discussion that immediately followed Ymblanter's removal request has been received sufficient attention in these past few days' discussion re restoration; here's the link Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_37#Request_for_flag_removal, and I think everyone here should read it. EEng 17:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support resysop (Non-bureaucrat comment) - while Ymblanter's "some users don't trust me so maybe I should resign" (paraphrased) comment seems to indicate that they thought a could was forming, it also does not seem to have been related to any particular incident. As far as I can tell and as far as anyone has been able to explain, no proceeding had been initiated prior to their request to resign, nor can I see anywhere in the discussions which were occurring at the time that any editors were considering it. And so I agree with Maxim (and maybe others) that declining this request amounts to the bureaucrats making a controversial determination about the weather, which is not within their authority. That is Arbcom's determination to make. I'm also quite strongly concerned about this decision creating a back-door to community desysopping, which the community has consistently rejected. If the 'crats cannot agree that the resignation was indeed under a cloud then they have no choice but to return the bit, and if anyone here strongly feels that Ymblanter's actions prior to resignation amount to cause for desysopping or that their resignation was intended to evade scrutiny or shirk admin accountability, they should compile their evidence and request arbitration, and they needn't wait for this request to conclude. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

However, if Ymblanter still believes that they no longer have the community's trust, then the accountable approach would be to drop this request and stand for a reconfirmation RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Followup comment (see my "process is important" note from several days ago). One issue I have with this is those disfavoring a regranting of the tools are largely hinging on what Ymblanter said upon resigning them. Given all the same facts, if Ymblanter had instead simply said something different – posted a differently phrased request – even a simple "I need a break.", this discussion probably would not be happening. BN is close to overstepping its authority (into adjudicating administrator behavior and fitness) mostly on the basis of the subjective wording choice of someone under stress. On a side note, I agree with EEng's view above that it's not useful 'to delay the "cloud" determination until a request for restoration of privileges is made -- that strikes me as backwards and it seems obvious to me that the time to do that is at the time the privileges are removed'. Doing the determination then rather than later would avoid repeats of this situation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  And I would suggest that the bar for such at-the-time determinations should be very low i.e. where there's any significant hint of trouble, the intended resign-er should be told, "Um, now's not a good time for you to resign; better wait until [whatever] is closed, or we'll have to consider your resignation under a cloud." EEng 04:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree that "those disfavoring a regranting of the tools are largely hinging on what Ymblanter said upon resigning them." Useight (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.

• Request would the 'crats, either individually or as a group, please clarify their understanding of the meaning/requirements of their understanding of under circumstances of controversy? I see a lot of comments where 'crats seem to be making it a very high bar yet if the community had wanted it to be a high bar I would expect more specific terms than the old under a cloud or the revises circumstances of controversy to have been used. This makes a difference in any future resignations associated with complaints about admin behavior. The interpretation put forward here will mean that, unless noted in the resignation that they can not just ask for their tools back, the complaint which lead to the resignation should be continued until the community comes to a consensus that it was under circumstances of controversy or not.
  'Crats are supposed to be conservative and in this case they seem to be taking a position based on an interpretation of the community's rules which they work under which many seem to feel is an overreach or misinterpretation. In my opinion the middle road here would be to continue this until there is a community consensus about whether Ymblanter's resignation was under a cloud or not. As I understand it the community decides on the requirements codified at RESYSOP and the 'crats are bound to follow it narrowly. Am I mistaken in my understanding?
  Thank you for your time and consideration of this. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 14:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I am very much in favour of this. I made a start on codifying things seven years ago at Wikipedia:Under a cloud. It never got much further than a start and it's still just an essay in projectspace. Perhaps we should finish it off, gain consensus for it to be policy and then point to it from the relevant places of WP:RESYSOP and WP:ADMIN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Is it not already codified fairly clearly? I think you missed the point of the question. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Consider this. My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I concur entirely with Dweller here. Per my comment in the morass above, the crux of this is that the relatively restrictive "only refuse in exceptional circumstances" WP:RESYSOP—which, despite not actually being a policy page, people reasonably assume reflects Wikipedia policy—doesn't match with the much broader "if there's anything contentious, re-run the RFA" language of the Scientology case which created the WP:RESYSOP policy. I suspect that, because most resysoppings are for non-controversial cases of admins taking long vacations and slipping over the inactivity line—for which "don't refuse the resysop unless there's clear evidence of abuse" is policy—some people get confused and don't realize that this doesn't apply to resysopping-following-resignation as well. If one assumes that the Scientology wording is still policy, then talk of "bright lines" is irrelevant. ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I think that there are a lot of very good and important points made just above. It would be one thing if we had a single, universally agreed-upon definition of "under a cloud", but we don't. So it seems to me that, in the event of a resysopping, it should be expected that the Crats would clearly articulate how they made a determination of under or not-under a cloud, and to do so in a manner that can hold up in future cases, when it will be inevitable that someone will want to use it as a precedent. This means that it has to be written very precisely. And given the differences in wording between the existing places where resysopping criteria have been written down, that creates a problem of Crats potentially creating policy. Taking all of that together, I think you have to be cautious about making a determination of "not under a cloud", which is a good reason to let the community have a say via a new RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Re-reading some of the material in light of the Scientology decision being the basis for the relavent part of RESYSOP I do not believe there is a policy based reason to deny Ymblanter's request. To be clear, based on his behavior, especially what is on display over on Commons, I do not think Ymblanter should be a sysop and I fully expect his resysop to do far more harm than good. The issue though is it does not appear there was any ongoing discussion about his behavior beyond general discontent nor do I see there was there a credible immediate threat of such a process being initiated ie no one had said they were preparing an ArbCom case or calling for sanctions at AN/ANI.
    Yes, Ymblanter seems to have lost the confidence of a large segment of the community; yes, he recognized that was the case; and yes, he resigned, at least in part, because he recognized that. He did though expressly reserve the right to request his tools back and no one challenged that. In such a situation a good admin would be expected to refrain from asking for their tools back until they had reasonably endeavored in good faith to regain some of the commmunity's confidence they had lost by not doing the things which led to loss of confidence in the first place. He did not do that, rather he kicked off this drama in what reads to me as a fit or pique/point making as a result of a conflict on Commons ie behaving similarly to what led to the initial loss of confidence. This, obviously, is incongruent with the actions I previously described of a good admin.
    Short term denying Ymblanter a resysop would, in my opinion, be beneficial to the project. We do not need admins who behave as he has. In the long term though I think we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. All active admins seem to have a cadre who think they should not be admins but that should not prevent them from being able to temporarily lay down the tools. Controversial circumstances should be defined loosely but, in my opinion, they must also be an immediate and well formed challenge of confidence. I would probably draw the line at the existence of an ongoing discussion legitimately contemplating sanctions or a desysop request either formally through ArbCom or a general call to resign due to loss of confidence. Calling general or unfocused complaints controversial circumstances would prevent admins who would genuinely benefit from time without the bit and who are likely to be a benefit to the project if/when they return from taking such a break. This would likely lead to the loss of good admins because rather than taking some time off and getting their shit together they would doggedly hang on until they are forcibly desysoped and cause much drama and pain in the interim. I think this would be the worse outcome for the project. Jbh ^Talk 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I no longer see it the way that you do, even though I agreed with the opening statement of this section. What seems to me to be important here is that the admin said, himself, that he believed that he had lost sufficient community trust to remain an admin, in his desysop request. I think it's a mistake to put much significance on the fact that nobody said at the time that he shouldn't get the tools back. To have done so at the time would have been like grave-dancing. But his own description takes this situation out of the typical cadre of detractors. An admin who wants time off does not normally attribute it to the typical cadre in their request, so this isn't comparable to a typical admin with typical detractors. I don't see the kind of long-term risk that you describe, because admins always have control over what they say is the reason for their desysop request. On the other hand, I see significant risk if there is a pro forma resysop now, because it will be just a matter of time before a troubled admin will argue that if you did it here, you have to do it for them too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can see your point but if we fall back to the desysop request there is both an recognition of loss of confidence and an explicit claim they did not feel the loss of confidence was sufficient to require a new RfA to get the tools back. The AGF reading of that would be he recognized his behavior had become problematic but not so problematic that a break from the tools would not fix it. I can see an alternate outcome where, after some rest and recalibration, he could have picked up the tools again and avoided the behavior that was eroding confidence going forward. (Yes, based on the attitude I witnessed in the Commons discussion, I recognize that outcome is aspirational rather than ever being realistic.)

From my understanding of the context of the Scientology decision what was contemplated was either the existence of a formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized ie actively avoiding scrutiny or circumstances where such a process was sure to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances. If an argument for either of those existing can be made in this case then there is a policy based reason not to re-sysop. I do not see one but I do not have a deep understanding of the background of the situation. Earlier I said I thought the 'crats must stick conservatively to the intended meaning behind controversial circumstances but the Scientology decision seems to raise the bar higher than I initially thought. Regrettably holding conservatively to the new bar now appears to argue for resysop.

This is unquestionably a difficult situation. I think the lack of a formal way for the community to express their loss of confidence in an admin and yank their tools is shameful and this situation is a great example for all of those who say such a thing is not needed. Jbh ^Talk 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

My vague recollection is that this has been proposed in the past – specifically, that at the time an admin requests voluntary desysop, the 'crats should talk among themselves and formally state whether or not the request is "under a cloud". On the one hand, it's a bit of extra work and a wasted exercise if the request for return of the bit never occurs, but I'll suggest two things: (1) requests for voluntary desysop are rare enough that this is a minor burden, and (2) this discussion itself is the poster child illustrating why such a policy would be helpful.

I hope someone can find the prior discussion (if it exists) to find out if there were arguments against the proposal that are compelling, but this long back and forth is strong evidence that had this discussion occurred earlier we'd all be better off.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not a collective decision. An ex-admin seeking resysoping only requires one crat willing to grant the bit. Even if none of the other crats are willing to resysop, the one crat's action is sufficient to determine the (ex-)admin status. And as with others, crats are volunteers, they are not compelled to act or make a decision. If none of them are willing to re-grant the bit, that is sufficient, none of them have to formally declare that any previous resignation was under a cloud. -- KTC (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was musing on this last night. I dont think it is really applicable. Crats are selected to perform very specific (and rather limited in scope) tasks for which they are the only people who can do it. Its not like admin actions where there are a huge amount of tasks and a large enough number of admins that there is always the availability of one to say yea/nay in any situation. Imagine if ARBCOM as a group just decided not to accept/reject cases because they are not compelled to. No one realistically expects all admins to take part in every action that requires an admin. There is the general expectation that crats and arbcom, unless unable due to RL circumstances or some other legitimate conflict, perform the function for which they are given their position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• So what, an editor asks the crats "if I resign now, will it be under a cloud", and if the answer is yes, they don't resign? How does that look? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I noted above that, if ArbCom proceedings are being planned against an admin, they should proceed even if they resign so ArbCom can make a determination about a “cloud”. I’d probably prefer that to the bureaucrats discussing among themselves on this issue. We can issue a binding motion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

    (a) Arbcom's got plenty too much to do to spend time adjudicating the fitness of someone who may never ask for adminship back anyway. (b) The very fact of resignation would drain a lot of the energy of a case that proceeds as you suggest; getting even a total asshole desysopped is a Herculean task no matter what, and it's asking a lot for people to have to keep up the momentum to continue pursuing the case against someone who, as mentioned, may never ask for adminship back anyway. If you want to resign, wait until there's a truly quiet time, and then do it. I find the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussions of how many crats it takes to screw in a lightbulb and so on the height of WP:BURO: it's obvious Ymblanter has lost the confidence of a large part of the community, and if he wants to be an admin again he should just apply again. He shouldn't want to be an admin if so many people don't want him. EEng 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Plus, if there's such a thing as a typical resignation, it would be "I'm very busy and don't have time for Wikipedia at the moment, please disable the admin bit and I may ask for it back when the work eases up/kid goes to school/sick relative recovers", or "I feel it's inappropriate to be an admin for life and I want to go back to being a normal editor, but I'd like the right to recover admin status if a situation arises in which I feel I could be useful". If there was a general perception that resignation would prompt everyone who'd been nursing a grudge to think "here's my chance!" and file an arb case, the net result would just be that people would no longer resign adminship even when for a completely legitimate reason, so we'd have even more of a problem with legacy admins who haven't kept up with current practice but still have the ability to wade into discussions all-guns-blazing because "that's how we did it in my day" than the significant problem we already have. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Maybe (HARD maybe, just brainstorming here) it could be the case that when admins request resysopping, there is no "crat denial" option. There could be "uncontroversial resysop" or "someone starts an arbcom case", the outcome of which would be either "resysopped" or "ineligible for resysopping without a new RfA". Most resysops are uncontroversial and can be dealt with as they are now by crats, but any controvsersial resysop request (i.e. where there is significant objection, etc.) goes to ArbCom. This would stop people rambling aspersions on BN (step up and file to ArbCom if you think the user should no longer be eligible for adminship). And even if there are concerns that some might "slip through the cracks" and get resysopped before objecters can voice their mind... it's never too late to file for ArbCom. I dunno. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  The issue with that is the bar for an ArbCom desysop is essentially a flaming dumpster fire being repeatedly crashed into a fireworks factory. Whereas an under-a-cloud resignation may only mean lots of editors thought the admin in question had a habit of being careless with matches. Jbh ^Talk 01:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  More like a flaming dumpster fire crashed into a fireworks factory adjacent to a combined nunnery and orphanage being visited at that moment by the Pope and the Queen. Repeat with successive popes and monarchs until desysop or abolition of papacy and/or British monarchy, whichever comes first. EEng 04:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Would you believe a nun in a Toyota and a box of sparklers? Well, how about a Hot Wheels sizzler and a wet penny bunger? ! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  The way I see it, there are only two possible statuses for an admin -- (1) either they are eligible to continue being admin (whether they currently hold the mop or have tucked it away for a while), or (2) they are no longer eligible to continue being admin (either by confiscating the mop or refusing to return it). "Refusing a resysop" is, for all intents and purposes, a desysop, and only ArbCom should desysop. It's not a burden that should be placed on crats. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Salvidrim!: is it your position that all admin activity requirements should be abolished? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Frankly I can't even figure out which word I've said led you to make such an immense leap. I don't even mention activity requirements; perhaps I should have, and I consider activty desysops to have plenty of consensus that they're set in stone and widely agreed upon, hence uncontroversial and requiring no judgement calls whatsoever. "Only Arbcom should desysop" could be expanded with "Only Arbcom and the inactivity threshold can desysop" (compromised accounts being a temporary desysop pending a permanent ArbCom motion anyways). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Salvidrim: ah ok, I was referring to the fact that we would "refuse" a resysop request from someone who breached the community managed activity policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Except in that case there is no "decision", crats (or anyone else) just point out that the user is ALREADY desysopped (meaning: not eligible to be a sysop without a new RfA). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding proceeding with an arbitration case with the intent of removing an editor's eligibility to be an administrator even after the editor has relinquished administrative privileges, the most precious commodity of volunteer editors is time. The point of someone resigning as an administrator under this circumstance is to save the community the time of discussing if that action should be mandated. I don't think it is an effective use of editor resources to continue with a case anyway. isaacl (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well personally I think there were only two people likely to have gone through the rigamarole required to bring a case at the time (rather than just expressing severe dis-satisfaction as a number of editors did), me and Fram. I cant speak for Fram but I certainly wasnt going to waste my own time by opening an arbcom case to pre-emptively prevent the return of tools at some hypothetical future point, when I didnt think anyone would seriously consider returning them. Fram may want to give his own opinion but he hasnt been on this month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I may have missed it somewhere, but has anyone every thought of giving the ability to bureaucrats to decline a resignation of an administrator so "under a cloud" doesn't exist anymore? The solution may be simpler than we previously thought: If an administrator wants to resign, but there is either an active ArbCom case, request for arbitration or thread on AN/ANI (for example) discussing their actions as an administrator at the time of the request, then it is declined until there isn't an active complaint being lodged against them. After, let's say 24 hours, has passed since the case/request/thread closed, then they are free to resign with the ability to re-gain the tools at any point. A resignation during the middle of an ArbCom case or during a request for arbitration already meant they were "under a cloud" when they resigned and AN/ANI threads close within a few days typically if complaints are deemed unimportant to act upon further. It provides 1) accountability to administrative actions so that they can't avoid scrutiny by resigning 2) Provides an easy return for administrators not having to worry about this kind of thread from starting on old disputes and, most importantly, 3) eliminates "under a cloud" and allows bureaucrats to have a hard-and-fast rule instead of having to interpret something like what cloudiness is or how cloudy it is. Feel free to ignore my ramblings, but it seems so much easier to decline a request and have administrators wait out the storm (whether it be minor or major) than auto-accepting every resignation and having this kind of fiasco. — Moe Epsilon 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

So your solution is to force admins under scrutiny for abusing the tools to have the tools longer? Regards SoWhy 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Moe Epsilon: I'm generally opposed to forcing someone to keep advanced permissions that they wish to relinquish. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

SoWhy: Yes, yes it is, generally speaking. The solution I provided resolves itself with inaction. Either, A) Whatever becomes of the ArbCom case/request/thread/etc. results in them not having adminship, because they are deemed unworthy of holding it, or B) No one pursues further action because what they did was not worthy of desysop. One of these two always happens regardless, unless they bolt mid-way through proceedings and resign. It's resulted in these kinds of cases where we don't know what would have happened or what should have happened, i.e "under a cloud". If we had something like this in place in the case of Ymblanter, the threads that were started against him would have either A) Have been pursued and resulted in him being desysopped formally or B) Would have closed, and then a resignation would not mean anything when he returned and wanted the tools back. I understand it goes against everything we ever did, but letting people hold onto advanced permissions while a thread closes can't possibly harm anything more than we have ever seen. — Moe Epsilon 19:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or stop allowing "resignations but you can come back without an RfA for a while (maybe)". You resign, you resign. You want back in, new RfA. Sounds rational and simple, doesn't it? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

...and thus cast a sufficiently funereal pall over WP:VOLUNTEER, certainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The current system works. Per the above, yes, there does need to be clarification and "firming up" (if I may pharaphrase Xeno), but in my eyes, that conversation is a good example of how things should work. The process started, objections were made, many voices chimed in, and a good discussion amongst bureaucrats has been and continuous to be had. This exact situation is (one of the reasons) why we have bureaucrats take care of this and why their vetting process is so strenuous. That most of the resysop requests and recent RfAs have been straightforward is nice, but we hired the bureaucrats to take care of the difficult cases. This situation is one of the hardest parts of their job and as far as I'm concerned, it has thus far gone quite well, lack of clarity/firmness aside. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree to disagree that this is a working system. We don't have a working system because we allow easy-outs to any criticism by simply resigning. Every form of dispute resolution stops when the main parties involved throw their hands in their air and walk away from it. It wastes the time of everyone involved for starting the original discussion to begin with and resolves nothing. In a working system, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now about a six month old dispute that, quite frankly, didn't look like it was going to ArbCom, didn't look to be a desysop request and, in the grand scheme of this conversation, isn't much. A working system would have a majority of bureaucrats (who as you say, are very carefully selected because of their good judgement) agreeing that this is or isn't a case of "under a cloud" and we sit almost 50/50 right now. If we have a very select group of editors reading and interpreting the same policies, it should be a nearly unanimous decision. It's not working. — Moe Epsilon 20:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If disputes or concerns about disruption remain after a user throw[s] their hands in their air and walk[s] away from it, those processes should continue, but if removing the bit negates the need for further action, then doing so solves everything, including avoiding a long and generally more involved ArbCom case. A working system does not have everyone in lockstep all the time (we'd only need two bureaucrats, then), a working system has both agreement and disagreement as part of a discussion with the goal of reaching consensus. We can and should solidify the policies around the current circumstances, but the fact that something is difficult ought not deter us from addressing it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the crats ask them, I am sure that Arbcom will be happy to give us all precise definition as to what the criteria for an automatic resysoping vs. requiring a new AfD RfA are. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Guy Macon: The way I see it is that ultimately deciding on what the policy should be is the remit of the community, not the arbitration committee. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why should ArbCom care about AfD? I thought we are discussing a resysop request?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

As EEng once again wonderfully illustrates, I think you mean RfA... ;) ansh666 03:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

AfD = Administrators for Desysopping? EEng 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

TLAs are tough... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Administrators for deletion, duh. (please don't delete me) ansh666 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please explain
If, as multiple editors claim above, This is for the community to decide and not Arbcom, could someone please explain the multiple comments above referencing the Arbcom Scientology case which created the WP:RESYSOP policy, and why that policy references Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's turtles all the way down. ArbCom is not a policy-making group, they judge disputes against community policy and standards. In Scientology the committee determined that a community principle was that bureaucrats should not return access to editors that resign under "controversial circumstances", and explicitly called out that editors in the midst of the final stage of dispute resolution are deemed to be in a controversial circumstance. It is referenced because it shows precedent of the application of this community principle, justifying its policy status. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

So why not ask Arbcom to once again determine what our community principals are? The discussions above show with crystal clarity that different editors have good-faith disagreements about basic questions like "what does under a cloud men" and "what does under circumstances of controversy mean?" Arbcom has ruled that "Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats". It isn't unreasonable to ask them to give the bureaucrats additional guidance to help them to make that determination. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You’re free to make a formal case request if you think you’ve got a full case here. Or request a motion of some kind. We certainly aren’t going to mae any new policies here at BN. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The "ask" could likely be done as a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, but that is only for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision. You could file a request for further clarification of Scientology (Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats), but not about the matter at hand, as there is no ArbCom decision to clarify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hawkeye7: I don't recommend it, but the ask would be to "clarify" the "case", specifically principle 15.1.9. Really though, a policy change questions doesn't need arbcom to clarify a 9 year old finding, it should just be held by the community. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, absolutely. We do it all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, RfC? perhaps at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)?

I would highly recommend that a draft of any such RfC be put up somewhere for comment. Far too often I see major RfCs with large numbers of comments saying the the question isn't neutral, that the wrong question was asked, or that the question listed two possible answers while ignoring a third which would have beat either. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

As is usual at these moments I would like to shamelessly plug my essay on the subject of setting up RFCs. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Such a clarification request could definitely be done at WP:ARCA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Return of access levels

In particular, note the "Statement by {other-editor}" section, where you can weigh in.

Please note that it is my intent to get clarification of our policies, not to reargue the particular case that started this discussion. Please help by avoiding any discussion of that case and instead focusing on the policy question. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Return of access levels arbitration clarification request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Basically it has been handed back to bureaucrats who may continue to use their discretion. I'd suggest an RFC be held to either delineate "controversial circumstances" or update Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal with more specific instructions: bureaucrats will continue to take their lead from the policy page. –xeno^talk 00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a general comment, I am not sure than an RFC is needed, or would result in much of a consensus. In my view the division between bureaucrats in this discussion reflects that of the community. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am conscious that I regularly find myself in a minority of bureaucrats on borderline calls when it comes to return of rights. I think articulating the dissenting view is important and will continue to do it. That said, unless the community is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the outcome of these calls (which I don't think is the case), then I doubt a consensus will emerge at an RFC to change the rules. I may not agree with the approach being taken, but I understand and support the rationale of my fellow bureaucrats. These are hard calls. IMO the community has appointed bureaucrats because it trusts us to make them (whether any given member of the community will agree with a particular call or not). I can't say that I see a pressing urgency to change that by creating some sort of clear cut policy that pre-determines every case. If we did that, would we need bureaucrats? WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just as a general note: RfCs on major policy issues (such as this) tend to be messes that end in no consensus and just further divide the community unless there is a strong organic consensus prior to the RfC even being opened. To put it bluntly, the method I’ve always found most useful when dealing with any policy reform proposal is this: only seek formal consensus when informal consensus already exists. Otherwise it just results in wasted time and hurt feelings. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought the organic consensus as to the underlying question was fairly strong in the recent case; the primary issue that garnered disagreement was how to apply the underlying consensus to a particular case in the absence of explicit clarification of the policy. Dekimasuよ! 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it takes time to develop and one of the problems with these type of resysop requests is that they happen so infrequently. I also disagree with the notion that there isn’t an underlying policy: if a sysop resigns under controversial circumstances, they should not be rsysoped. It’s up to bureaucratic discretion to decide what that means. You won’t have a clear enough consensus/practice on that to create a workable RfC proposal until you have several more of these in a relatively close time frame, which, thankfully, is exceedingly rare. Any RfC without a steady history of these requests to see what consistent current practice is (which is the strongest indicator of consensus) is all but guaranteed to fail. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you to a point, and I'm not looking to expend a lot of effort on this. However, if the clarification were simply that the determination of controversial circumstances can or should be made at the time of removing the tools, there would be a greater range of cases at hand. Dekimasuよ! 01:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I want to heavily emphasize that I think the Committee explicitly rejected bureaucrat arguments that they should not exercise their discretion. Resysopping blindly in all cases where there was no pending arbitration case and expecting the Arbitration Committee to desysop if we think there was a cloud is not the way to go. The community and the Arbitration Committee expects bureaucrats to seriously consider the circumstances surrounding the resignation and make a determination of whether or not there is a cloud. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with WJB here. The project has seen fit to trust our judgement and I would think they would want us to exercise that judgement. However, we are neither robots nor clones of each other, and we can (and have) disagreed. Does that mean that there may be cases where a bureaucrat may take action where another wouldn't? Sure. And I think that's fine and my understanding from the community is that is OK as well. They want human logic and intuition involved, and that may lead to natural inconsistency at times. I think that on the whole, we've been pretty consistent, but am probably biased and open to constructive criticism, as always. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unless you want to vote on everything Arbcom style, Individual 'crats making decisions are fine as long as the 'crat has a reasonable expectation that a majority of the other 'crats would come to the same conclusion. So IMO the present system of 'crats deciding whether to act unilaterally or to open up a crat chat before acting is working fine. It isn't broken and thus does not need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply