This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I 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)
Closing
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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. — xaosfluxTalk02:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. — xaosfluxTalk16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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
Resigned to avoid possible sanctions due to their actions? ?
Waited the required 24 hours after request? Y
Not inactive for 3 years or more? Y
Not administratively inactive for 5 years or more? Y
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Warofdreamstalk17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@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? — xaosfluxTalk17:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Warofdreamstalk18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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". EEng07:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Acalamari13:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Current Crat Summary
Ayes
Dweller
Maxim
Nihonjoe
Warofdreams
Deskana
28bytes
Noes
Useight
WJBscribe
Xaosflux
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.
@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. — xaosfluxTalk11:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
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.) –xenotalk19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Other discussion
(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)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me09:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
(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 room09:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 room13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
(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)
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 SoWhy11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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 SoWhy14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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. SpartazHumbug!12:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
(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)
(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)
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.)
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)
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)
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. ---Sluzzelintalk15:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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. ‑ Iridescent15:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
(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)
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 room15:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.) ‑ Iridescent16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. —Cryptic00:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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 room19:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Talk03:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC) PS. Footnote #6 of RESYSOP uses the phrase "under circumstances of controversy". Last edited: 05:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. EEng03:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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? EEng06:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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? EEng13:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. EEng13:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.∯WBGconverse05:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me12:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Lourdes10:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. ~ Rob13Talk14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk14:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. ~ Rob13Talk14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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. ‑ Iridescent15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 room15:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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? --NeilNtalk to me15:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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. --NeilNtalk to me15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Mkdwtalk16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. — MoeEpsilon18:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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. ‑ Iridescent22:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me06:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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. ReykYO!08:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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+Karate09:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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 SoWhy15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. EEng15:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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. LugnutsFire Walk with Me16:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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. EEng17:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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." EEng04:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
Clarifying policy
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?
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)
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)
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. ‑ Iridescent15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 Talk22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 Talk01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Reconsider identifying status at time of desysop.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ~ Rob13Talk20:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(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. EEng20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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. ‑ Iridescent21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 Talk01:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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.EEng04:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk03:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A modest proposal
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. — MoeEpsilon19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
So your solution is to force admins under scrutiny for abusing the tools to have the tools longer? Regards SoWhy19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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. — MoeEpsilon19:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. — MoeEpsilon20:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
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. — xaosfluxTalk13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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. — xaosfluxTalk22:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Return of access levels arbitration clarification request closed
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. –xenotalk00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ~ Rob13Talk00:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Tech Administrators
Hello BN watchers, the transition period for "tech admin" access to edit site js/css has begun. Bureaucrats can manage access to the new group - but we need a community policy and process to follow (even if it is something like "At bureaucrats discretion" - which I really don't recommend). In about one month, enforcement of this will begin (that is existing admins will no longer be able to use this access). Overall guidance is that this access requires at least the same level of trust and competence that administrators have. Our community is mostly free to make its own policies and processes related to this. Some informal discussions suggest that most of our admins won't need this as they either do not have the desire or aptitude to make these type of edits. It is also up to us if we want to make being an admin a prerequisite., Thank you, — xaosfluxTalk14:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:RFTA with 80% support would be my suggestion (higher than RfA because I personally feel that the ability to mess up the website as a whole is more sensitive than what will be remaining in the admin package.) Do we need to specify that local crats have the ability to remove it as well? I thought this was raised on meta, but I forget the answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: we (crats) can also remove this, the community policy should also stipulate when this should occur, and if there are special provisions for "former" access holders. The general guidance is that some type of inactivity requirement also be required (if we require admin, it COULD be tied to admin access - or could be something else). — xaosfluxTalk14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Salvidrim!, I think the best step forward at this time is for people who are interested to work on the talk page there to get a proposal together and then put it to the community at an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I am kind of wary of having an RfA like process for this user right. I mean, what are we community members supposed to evaluate there? I'd rather see a process like the one used on WP:EFN for edit filter manager access, not something as heavy-weight as RfA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I also said upfront that I viewed this as more of an EFM-like thing. Both EFMs and techadmins can basically break an entire wiki so it makes sense for both user-right requests to be reviewed by existing right holders and experienced in the chosen area. As long as both are gated behind "must already be admin" I don't see how a second RFA-like process is helpful. Ben · Salvidrim!✉15:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Some moderation is needed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley in the oppose section. At least one of the opposes have gone completely off the rails and should probably be moved to the talk page. It's disruptive and unfair to the candidate.- MrX 🖋 11:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Could someone close the RfA, even if it is just temporarily pending final determination. The RfA expired a while ago and people are still !voting which doesn't seem very fair. Thanks... `Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: You should read the notice when you edit this board. What's happening at the RfA is not uncommon, whereas a "temporary" closure is. I'm sure the crats are well aware of what's going on at the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What is not fair about allowing editors express their opinions? Nothing says an RFA must run exactly 7 days and anything after those 7 days should not be allowed. ~ GB fan18:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If I were a crat (which thank God I am not) I would not be in a hurry to close it. Opinions are still flooding in. Let the community have its say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux, should RfAs not usually be closed on time? The "minimum" language was addedtoWikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header in May 2011 by Wifione. Before that it said: "Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page ... In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer."
As I recall, if an RfA was going to be extended, a bureaucrat would announce it. But as a rule, they were closed on time, because otherwise you're leaving it to a bureaucrat to choose a random cut-off point. SarahSV(talk)18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
leaving it to a bureaucrat to choose a random cut-off point (a.k.a. closing the RfA when a crat can find the time to do so) has been the status quo for (at least) seven years now, so... Writ Keeper⚇♔18:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well.....considering what happened with Wifione, perhaps we ought to question it. But you're right that it's probably too late for that. ansh66619:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many active bureaucrats there are, but I believe it's over a dozen, and there is one RfA, the closing date of which was known a week ago. If there has been a decision to extend it, fair enough, but otherwise someone should close it. SarahSV(talk)19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed it should be closed in short order, but unless a bot is programmed to do it, in a volunteer environment they'll always be some lag. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)HiSlimVirgin, "extending" and just "not got to it yet" are not really the same concept. While the administrator policy on this is that the discussion "takes place for seven days", the bureaucrat guidelines (since 2004) call for us to "Wait at least seven days". In practice (since 2010) we have asked for at least 12 hours of patience for one of our volunteer bureaucrats to action these discussions. As these are well advertised and entrenched processes, if you would like to introduce an RfA change that the discussion must never continue beyond 604800 seconds or some other value, feel free to start a discussion to discover if there is a consensus for such change. — xaosfluxTalk19:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, SlimVirgin is correct. To be fair to the candidate a 'crat should close this now that it's run a full week. Unfortunately, I can't be that 'crat because I've participated in the RfA. Hopefully another 'crat will come along soon and take care of it. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm at work right now, and if noone gets to it by the time I'm home tonight I will - but I'm not trying to "reserve" it or anything, if anyone else has a chance to it would be better to get it moving. — xaosfluxTalk19:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Consider AfDs as an analogy. Most of them run 168 hours and are then closed (ignore relisting for the minute as we can't relist RfAs). For easy ones where all participants !voted "delete" or "keep", they can be closed after the time limit without much chance of complaint. For more difficult ones with a mix of "keep", "delete", "merge", "redirect" etc. that require reading through several pages carefully to assess consensus, they get left until somebody's got time to do it. Patience. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Afds are not analogous though, because they are not personal whereas this is. It isn't fair to Jbh to have the clock ticking on indeterminately, and can you imagine the brouhaha in the unlikely event that the % dips below 65 between now and whenever the crats get around to it? It'll be just like that second Brexit referendum business. — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
At this rate, it's going to tick back above 75% by the time it's closed. Equal but opposite outroar... ansh66600:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Check out my analysis, at the discussion's talk page, of the change in the !vote between the scheduled close time and the current (editing halted) state. Basically there were 16 additional !votes, but they were pretty much in proportion to the existing totals and only changed the final percentage by four-tenths of a percent. No harm, no foul - and 16 additional people got to !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you to those of you expressing concern but I am fine with someone getting around to dealing with the closing whenever they are able to. Jbh Talk20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Given JBH's statements on his talk page in the last couple of days, plus his comment above, I'm increasingly thinking the nom's should have added "nerves of steel" to his qualifications as an admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I've reviewed the RfA a couple of times now. Not sure what I'd say even if it was a chat. First time I read I had decision "A"; the second time it was decision "B". So that's where I'm at. :p Maxim(talk)21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Maxim, IMO this RfA should be closed pending bureaucrats decision and/or 'crat chat. Leaving a highly contentious RfA such as th's one deliberately open, could be considered a Bureaucrat super-vote depending on its status when a 'crat decides to close the voting. There's no real excuse for taking 12 hours to stop the voting. It's not hard to do for any bureaucrat who is around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. This is giving the appearance of an improper supervote. No one is asking for a final decision yet, but they needed to close this 10 hours ago. The time spent by the bureaucrats discussing this close here could have been used to open a bureaucrat chat. Nihlus00:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: I've frozen the RfA pending closure, and are actively reviewing right now. No more !votes are being accepted. I don't see any reason this needs to be "extended" so the next update will either be a closure or a crat chat. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk01:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trust bureaucrats to do what they are supposed to do. Interpret consensus, and make the adminship granting decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
oh wait, we are not saying random things? Then: Leave it alone and let the crats handle this... —usernamekiran(talk)05:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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.
Specifically, Also, while we're at it, please de-sysop me. The only reason I was keeping the mop was to handle POTD. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
--S Philbrick(Talk)18:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello 'crats. I've started a mostly ad-hoc discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated due to the scheduled access change next week and the lack of a new community policy being born from the consensus process yet. I'm recusing myself due to nominating everyone. Now the second problem, in the absence of policy actually directing us to process these requests are there any bureaucrats that would be willing to close and process access grants assuming the specific nominees gain support? — xaosfluxTalk02:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all, the ad-hoc minimum discussion time has been reached, please review if you think there is consensus to act (including that a sufficient overall participation level was met). The general community proposal seems to be getting closer to something actionable, but I suspect there may be one or two other temporaries that may be needed (such as the normal maintainers of MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js while it still has to be done this way) that could go through the same abbreviated but temporary process. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding that Geonotice, I wonder if one could build a template that hosts the "safe" portions of the JavaScript while leaving the sensitive ones on the now higher-protected page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think keeping this one open for extra time, so more can pile on, is helpful. Can this one get a quick "mercy close", please? Everything that needs to be said has already been said. wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This looks like a bug/something that should be fixed, since there wouldn't be anything sensitive in viewing the deleted history of a JS file Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Just noting, as an administrator, oversighter and checkuser.... I can't see it either. Looks like it's interface admins only. WormTT(talk) 13:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
My RfA
NOPE
Asked and answered, crats do not have to chat to close an RFA in the discretionary zone and there seems to be no outstanding reason for one in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My RfA closed today at 64%. At the scheduled closing time the vote was 65% in my favour but shortly after that time additional voting moved it to 64% thus depriving me of the opportunity of a "crat chat". In the oppose votes there were factual inaccuracies where I was criticised for articles I hadn't edited, images I hadn't uploaded and the formatting of references carried out by other people. There was plenty of valid criticism too or it would have been higher than 65%. I am no wiki-lawyer and I don't want to sound like this is a case of sour grapes but it is a little frustrating not to be granted the opportunity of an additional overview by bureaucrats due to voting that occurred after the scheduled close. This will probably be my only application for admin so I want to be sure of the result. I realise a "crat chat" is not automatic but I should be grateful if one would be granted. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-crat comment: As of 11:23 [3], the tally is 143/78/23, so s% is 143/(143+78)=64.7%, not above 65%. So I endorse this decision Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Philafrenzy. I went over to assess the consensus, and saw a clear lack of consensus to promote, so would not have instigated a crat chat, even if 5-10 more people had supported. The 65%-75% area does not automatically require a crat chat, nor does less than 65% automatically stop one from happening - a crat chat is meant for situations where consensus is not clear, based on the rationales provided. What's more, the 7 day period is a minimum, not an absolute. I'm afraid I agree with the outcome here - but I will say, on a personal note, I would like to see you as an admin one day and I think you will do a fine job, so please do try again in a few months. WormTT(talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, we do our bureaucrats a disservice when we casually refer to the 65%-75% as "crat chat zone" instead of "discretionary." As WTT says, a crat chat is a bit of an ad hoc creation when a closing bureaucrat has difficulty discerning consensus. The confusion only exists because we have largely established cutoff zones at RfA, so most of the time we expect discretion to be used is where a crat chat might reasonably appear. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I participated in the RfA, so won't speak to the merits of the discussion, however as far as the closing process goes: RfA's remain open for comments until they are closed, there is not a mandatory maximum discussion period, this is similar to almost all other consensus building discussions such as AFDs/RFCs. — xaosfluxTalk15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: You were criticized for images (plural) you didn't upload? I don't see that anywhere. In my oppose !vote, I cited four files, three of which you were the original uploader for and one of which someone else uploaded but you retouched and uploaded an edited version of it. I don't see any other !votes that mentioned specific images. I clearly said that you "retouched" the one file that you weren't the original uploader for. You were not criticized for "images [you] hadn't uploaded". --B (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, oppose #70 contained criticism for pages Philafrenzy didn't edit. Though I have no doubt that any factual inaccuracies in RfA comments were taken into consideration by the closing crat. — Bilorv(c)(talk)19:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
On your talk page, you made the statement that "it's somewhat frustrating that I would probably have had this additional consideration at 65%". I don't know where you got the impression that a 65%="crat chat likely", but it doesn't. Secondly, I don't know where you got the impression that !votes cast after the scheduled closing time shouldn't count, but they do. Thirdly, I don't know where you get the impression that a 64% is such a close call that you need to split hairs over that single percentage point, but it's not. Lastly, you still had significant support, and as long as you do not continue to repeat the mistakes that led to the opposes, you could probably easily sail through an RfA in the future with my full confidence and support. Whether or not it was intended, this apparent refusal to simply respect the opposition to your RfA and instead split hairs over the close will likely come up as an obstacle to that. Swarm♠18:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am writing to request the interface administrator right, which I have lost due to the recent change. I am dropping a line here per the current text on WP:Interface administrators: "Bureaucrats may grant interface administrator access to any current administrator requesting access at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Requests must remain open for a minimum of 24 hours for community review." I am an administrator on WP:Geonotice and also have extensive experience in editing the MediaWiki namespace through interface and gadget localization work at the Cantonese Wikipedia. Deryck C.13:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done there is no policy that allows us to grant this access yet, see all the notes on the request above. If the process will be delayed you could start another list of stop-gap users with essentially the same accepted temporary process used for the last list. — xaosfluxTalk17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I do a lot of CSD and occasionally encounter userspace css/js pages wherein the creator has requested deletion. As the new change no longer allows me to edit/delete these pages, I would like to request the interface administrator permission so I can continue to carry out these duties. Thanks, FASTILY04:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Tried to U1 User:Mandarax/w.js just now. I'm not sure how to pull up a list of previous *.js/*.css pages I've deleted using any existing special page. Can try running a query on labs later when/if I have time. -FASTILY04:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there! I'm here to request the 'interface administrator' user rights so that I can continue to do what I've done before, which is to assist users with their .js and .css code within their user space (in fact, I have a message on my user talk page here with an active request for help regarding their .js file and scripts). I won't be able to continue assisting users with their code without the permissions. I'm a software engineer, have designed my own versions of scripts within my user space, and I completely know and understand the sensitivity of these user rights and the impact that making careless edits and mistakes can cause to Wikipedia; I have a strong password, use 2FA, and promise to use the rights with care at all times. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to respond. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Not doneHi@Oshwah: we don't yet have a community approved mandate to process this request, although you sound like a fine candidate. You (and anyone following this) can help get a proposal moved to production at: Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators - and the sooner the better! Should that process continue to delay, I (and presumably the other 'crats who commented above) would consider temporary grants that followed the approximate consensus driven support mechanism as seen at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated (especially that it is open for at least a few days, allows for revocations for cause, has sufficient participation, and has sufficient advertisement). Additionally, that same sort of mechanism could be used to empower us crats to do general temporary grants in the interim. I know this process can be annoying, and thank you for wanting to keep helping! If you have any edits that are needed, please drop an edit request on the associated talk page and it will be given priority. — xaosfluxTalk01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux - Ah, poo... no worries. The guidelines and mandates regarding the granting of this user right will be better defined in time. I'll definitely do my due diligence and help on the discussion page as you suggested. Thanks for the response and for letting me know :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Side question @Xaosflux:, is there a new version of the edit-request template/cat for this, since it's a new level of protection (inherent instead of applied manually)? The edit-fully-protected queue doesn't seem proper... Ben · Salvidrim!✉02:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: (or anyone, not picking on Xf!) Just out of my own absolutely idle curiousity (seeing admins not able to request the right becasue it doesn't officially exist, right?), then how comes a few already do hold it? Beta testing or something? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There was a quick poll to grant temporary access to a couple uncontroversial candidates until the formal application process is figured out. Those people will need to reapply once the formal process is in place. See here and here. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: if there is a second batch of editors that would like to go through the same "quick poll" process, it can be done. Using the same constraints and methods of the precedent setting first batch should be sufficient. If it was opened today it could be done in 3 to 4 days. — xaosfluxTalk18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I admit to being a bit confused about this whole process. Where was the community consensus to remove these rights from the normal administrator user group? If there was no such consensus, shouldn't there have to be consensus to deny the right to administrators rather than to grant it? The status quo is for an administrator to have access to these rights. ~ Rob13Talk00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Looks like this page explains a bit of this. I also managed to find this discussion, which occurred after the user group was created to explain the reasoning behind its creation, as well as a short discussion trying to determine how the user right should be granted, which closed as "Commenters here should discuss at WT:Interface administrators."--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time?00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Having all admins be able to edit sitewide CSS/JS was determined to be a problem by the WMF due to the ability of hundreds of users to place code that is executed in reader's broswers. The solution was to make these pages uneditable for anyone, including admins, and create a new local userright requiring even more trust than admins. It's similar to edit filters, really,which could disable all editing if mishandled and are also not editable by anyone-including-admins but have a separate userright. Ben · Salvidrim!✉00:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My point stands. The previous status quo was that all administrators had access to this user right. Until consensus determines otherwise, any administrator who requests the right should receive it. There is no community consensus to remove these rights from administrators. I can understand granting it on a temporary basis if it seems likely a consensus that would be more restrictive is likely to emerge in the near-term, but that should be the only restriction until the community decides otherwise. I'm not arguing against this user right, Salvidrim!. I'm just saying that, until community consensus determines administrators should not have access to a right they previously held for years upon request, no policy, guideline, or consensus allows such restrictions. This is what happened when edit filter manager was introduced. ~ Rob13Talk01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Now that Rob brings this out, it does seem odd that this ability was removed as an office/tech action without involving community opinion. Lourdes01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, that bit's fine. They do have jurisdiction over security issues. The bit that I'm less fine with is the community portion. Until there's consensus otherwise, the status quo is that administrators should have access to these rights. That would involve granting upon request. ~ Rob13Talk02:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lourdes: It wasn't a Foundation project so it definitely wasn't an "office action". It was a "tech action" insofar as any of the hundreds of changes to MediaWiki each week are "tech actions", yes. Regarding "community opinion", there were announcements, calls for input, resulting discussions, and so on. I suggest reading m:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS for more information. --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rob here: until community consensus creates a different process, individual volunteers should be allowed to regain the same level of permissions by default, just like an admin who temporarily relinquished their bit because e.g. they were travelling to a sensitive country, and requested a restoration of rights on their return.
The other problem with what happened was that individual users were not notified of their loss of rights nor the process to keep it before it happened. When the inactivity-desysop rule was first introduced, every admin who would be desysopped due to inactivity was sent a talk page message, with clear instructions on how to keep it (make a constructive edit and drop the crat a message). In contrast, this change was only advertised on the Admin's Newsletter and Signpost for less than two months before it happened, so most admins weren't aware of it. The lack of a rule on how to keep / gain the Interface Admin right before Admins were stripped of the JS/CSS edit permissions then added to all this and caused a big bummer. Deryck C.10:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth on en.wb, although comparatively speaking it's a small project, we decided to give the right to any admin who requested it based on the same rationale as you are using here QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC).
From a 'crat standpoint, we're mostly just waiting for the community to ratify a process, any process. It could be "shall grant on demand to any administrator", it could be "week long discussion like RfA with 90%+ support" or anything in between. — xaosfluxTalk15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not as in tune and active as I used to be due to work, but I have to agree with Rob. This seems to be overkill to remove our access to pages we previously had access to. If it is done for security, then that is saying we can't trust admin in general. I can understand limiting access to the site wide CSS, but I can't access or delete individual user js or css files either, which it would seem, is a task that admin were selected to do. Can't we differentiate the true site wide js and css files and individual user files? There is virtually zero risk in an admin having access to those. And no, I don't remember being notified about this, and should have since it affects my tool set. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't when I wrote that, but glad to see they fixed that. It isn't something we do daily, but it is a valid use of the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, The ability to view deleted pages wasn't actually added with that (only the ability to delete pages so that things like copyright violations and such can be deleted). But that should be fixed once phab:T202989 is resolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, I find it difficult to fault Rob's point above. This is a technical change, reflecting no local consensus to change the range of things an enwiki admin can do. On enwiki, admins are expected to be able to edit these pages. Pending a community consensus to the contrary, it seems to me that any admin should therefore be entitled to (at least temporary) access to the new "interface admin" permission on request to maintain the status quo. WJBscribe(talk)22:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I kind of thought this process to come up with a process for granting the interfaceadmin rights was going to be a trainwreck from the beginning. We've had years and MBs of discussions about RFA and especially de-sysop processes and little has changed. --Rschen775418:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I was travelling last week so I didn't have a chance to reply to the various threads. My view is that lacking a community-approved process for granting this right is not the same as lacking approval/willingness/ability to grant the right. I see nothing wrong with granting it on request, and as bureaucrats we have not been explicitly barred from doing so. Looking at some requests here and on the talkpage ... these are requests to help other users with their JS/CSS or sort out their bots. Especially with the straw poll being somewhat muddy in terms of consensus/no consensus, I feel it would be more useful to let admins do what they've been doing already and sort out the process issue after the fact. How do other bureaucrats stand on this approach of giving it out on request? In terms of the requests up on this page right now, I would have granted them on the spot but I understand xaosflux's reasoning, so I don't want to start stepping on any toes. Maxim(talk)17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Maxim: My viewpoint is that the community has been asked to create a policy on this for a while now, but it was mostly ignored until a few editors were personally impacted. While I declined the on-demand grants above, I created the abbreviated temporary process via WP:IAR out of need to ensure needed updates could continue. I'd rather see any community consensus process ratified to empower us to act then just doing so on our own, even something as simple as "Access may be assigned or removed at bureaucrat discretion". While that is outstanding, do you think my stop-gap process is too onerous? The largest objections I've seen to it so far seem to be along the lines of "4 days is too long" and "any process is too much process". — xaosfluxTalk18:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to do it on the spot, so my objection to it would be both "4 days is too long" and "too much process". I see nothing wrong with making up convention as we go along here. Maxim(talk)18:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's mixing up the technical reason for separating out the rights, and local consensus here on enwiki. It is for this community to decide if there is to be a higher expectation for "interface administrators" than regular admins, that cannot be set from phabricator. Until that consensus exists, maintaining the status quo would mean granting to any admin upon request. I find myself wholly in agreement with Maxim (and others who have made the same point). WJBscribe(talk)11:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has resigned the bit in anger once or twice, can I ask, @Spartaz: that you remove this request, and repost if you feel the same after the weekend? Your fundamental assumption - that your admin contributions aren't valued or respected - is incorrect, so the request is based on flawed reasoning. We have a whole bunch of dispute resolution processes; let's follow one of those instead. If you still want to resign next week, boy do I ever understand the feeling. But if you don't, it's just easier all around not to resign in the first place. Said Floquenbeam, from experience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I have put my 2c on ANI re: the deletion review and the TL:DR version is I agree with you and have said why. I appreciate that there are days when nothing I do seems to go right, but walking away from it doesn't really solve anything. Sleep on it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Done reluctantly. Enjoy your time away and feel free to stop back here to get your bit back when you're feeling better. Your contributions are indeed valued. 28bytes (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Fwiw I was angry when I made the request but I'm calm now and was when I reaffirmed the request. I'm clear that I don't need the bit. I only use it for closing AFDs and I'm going to step away from that because Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby and relaxing and I don't feel relaxed if stupid shit is making me angry. So, giving the bit away makes sense. At some point I may change my mind and be available to help out again but this isn't the project I joined in 2006 anymore. SpartazHumbug!21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Spartaz. Randykitty. I can't help but think you two have overestimated the gravity of the comments made against you, and underestimated how important the both of you are to the project. Spartaz, you are right--this isn't the same project; it's probably more important, and that's partly your own fault. Randykitty, you f***ing know how much I and other editors rely on you for anything related to academics. Plus both of you are actually content editors too. Please reconsider; I am having a hard time imagining not being able to call on either of you. AND IF YOU DONT!!!!--well, please know I'll miss you, and thank you for your service. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to say how sorry I am that these two fine administrators have resigned. I hope they will be back. In the past two months I have found some of the parts of Wikipedia that I frequent to be a sewer. Has there been a general degradation of behavior recently? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC).
Apologies, I forgot the details. Since it's only suspended, I read from that that it will be reactivated if he returns as an admin: until Winhunter returns to active status as an administrator. If Winhunter resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room16:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the motion states that now that they’ve been desysopped the case should be closed with no action. If they were to return there would be no open case against them. Stephen12:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem you said it wrong @DeltaQuad: Per policy, if they were to return today and ask at BN for resysoping (read: returning to administrative tasks), it will be granted as there's no policy-based reason to decline. AND then, they've to face ArbCom case. But if they were to return as normal editor, then no Case. So the claim "If they were to return there would be no open case against them." depends on which circumstances they return, otherwise, this is a loophole. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not trying to speak for any arbs other than my own slow self, but this train of thought seems overcomplicated to me. The whole point of suspending a case like that is to facilitate a quiet withdrawal by someone who is by all appearances burned out and uninterested in the case proceeding (a mechanism has been used in the past to apparent success). It strikes me as perfectly obvious that having your admin privileges removed due to inactivity, following an accepted arbcom case that was suspended specifically due to your inactivity, is just as controversial a circumstance as explicitly resigning while a case about your admin privileges is open. Yeah, the wording at WP:ARBPROC is out of date and the loophole should be closed, but that can be done without the need for what-iffery in this specific case, and without trying to read any more general conclusions about resysopping into it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm mildly concerned that the committee would need to. The only formal definition of a cloud we have is where an administrator resigns their tools in the face of an arbitration case, beyond that we are looking at bureaucrat's discretion (per this outcome of an Arb Case). That case, alongside the associated Arbcom procedures were both put forward before our inactivity requirements were first agreed by the community in July 2011. It does look like the procedures do need to be updated to take the situation into account, but as 'crats should be using their discretion - it seems patently obvious that stopping editting all together for over a year is equivalent in cloud formations to handing in the admin tool. WormTT(talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I think that's more or less what's likely to happen - I just think it's a sort of unnecessary bit of bureaucracy. It's well established that if you actively resign your tools during a case about your tool use, that counts as controversial. If you passively resign your tools by letting them expire, that amounts to the same thing. This seems like a pretty straightforward implication of the existing norm and not a backdoor change to bureaucrat discretion more generally. I guess the sticking point here for me is that the whole point of the suspended-case structure is to facilitate a quiet exit, and it seems a bit counterproductive if we then a year later have to do anything beyond quietly making some clerkish edits to the dummy case pages - mainly because anything arbcom does in public gets artificial prominence not really needed for a year-old issue. Though I suppose there's room for simple "notes" rather than a formal motion with votes. I guess I might feel differently if the inactivity period got much shorter, and now that I'm writing this out I'm coming up with all kinds of convoluted scenarios where things aren't quite so straightforward, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, noting my agreement with DeltaQuad, Worm and Opabinia regalis. This looks to me like a clear cut case of ceasing to be an admin in controversial circumstances. It is correct that this determination is ultimately to be made by the bureaucrat(s) asked to returns the tools at the time any request is made, but it would surprise me if this proved controversial and do not think anything extra is needed from ArbCom. WJBscribe(talk)11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If there were a request today and we were discussing it here, I'd be on the "cloud" side of the argument - but I would not be surprised if there was debate. — xaosfluxTalk11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I left a note on your talk page asking about a slight modification, as the current motion seems like a summary desysopping without a case, and I worry that might be a bit beyond the normal reach of Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Winhunter
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Because Winhunter has been desysopped for inactivity, this case is closed pursuant to the previously adopted motion. Because the automatic desysopping occurred while Winhunter was the subject of a pending arbitration case, he may regain administrator status only by passing a new request for adminship.
Convert all current temporary interface admins to permanent ones
There is sufficient support for making these permissions permanent for the below-listed users that I'm comfortable closing this as a successful request, and will set the flags accordingly. I'm also cognizant that there is a small minority of editors expressing concern about this request not following the letter of the decided-upon process, but as this is a one-off request as we transition to the new intadmin setup and has broad support I think it's OK to handle it in a one-off fashion without fear that it will set a precedent for how intadmin requests are handled in the future. 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just closed the Interface Administrator RfC, and now that a process exists, because the new process is less demanding than the temporary one implemented by Xaosflux, I propose all users that have passed Xaosflux's IntAdmin process should be converted to full permanent ones. Thoughts? All current IntAdmins can be found here.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the list myself, but would rather not use the made-up process to start this, and just do a standard 48 hour hold here to make it a "clean" process. (If you are on the list and don't want this you may certainly remove yourself from the list!). — xaosfluxTalk02:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just in regards to any complaints of "you need to actually ask for it", I do indeed want to continue to be able to use this. Thanks, — xaosfluxTalk00:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Procedural Oppose. Why have these names been mass added? The new procedure says people should nominate themselves with a 48 hour holding period, and with a definite need in mind. If each of these users individually requests the bit I can support, but the whole point of this is to reduce our attack surface, and mass adding people who have not requested it is anathema to that. — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Each user did request access before process was established. This is just formalizing/finalizing these requests. Also bear in mind the final decision rests with the bureaucrats.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)17:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
But this is the new process now. The rules (which I believe are based on your own close, Cyberpower), say Admin makes a request, with a rationale, at the bureaucrats’ noticeboard, to request interface administrator access. That has not happened here. Like I say, if each of the above names makes such a request, I would be happy to support, but for now they haven't done so, and having previously done so isn't proof they still wish to have access. It's a grave shame if we can't get the new process right even on the first day. — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
But they made such a request at the old venue with stricter requirements. It's not like they got it without any process. Also, we didn't mass-desysop editors Jimbo had given the rights to before RFA was established, did we? That's how grandfathering works. Plus, and this comes from someone who has been repeatedly accused of being too bureaucratic (funnily enough at my own failed request to become a bureaucrat), requiring these editors to follow the new less strict process after already passing the strict process seems to be following rules for the sake of following rules. Regards SoWhy17:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rationale doesn't imply the requirement of stating an indication of need, as that proposal was turned down. But needless to say, every user who has gone through the process of gaining 6 months access, undoubtedly would have handed the bit in if they weren't interested in retaining it. But to each their own. I'll let those users speak for themselves.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)17:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We can basically oppose for any reason since the final decision rests with the reviewing bureaucrat. So when you say Rationale doesn't imply the requirement of stating an indication of need, as that proposal was turned down, that doesn't mean a whole lot. (We know what these person's needs are, as Xaosflux already got that out of them.) --Izno (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You can. The whole point of the discussion is to bring possible security issues or competence issues to light for the bureaucrat to decide on. As admins already have a higher level of trust, asking for perms in an RfA style manner is pointless, as this perm is strictly a letter of security. That’s at least the impression I got at the RFC I closed.—CYBERPOWER(Around)11:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If you are concerned about my account security, then let me state that I have both a super long password and 2FA enabled on my account. I know that’s not the only way to gain access to an account, but I’ve always taken precautions to secure access to my account since before I became an admin.—CYBERPOWER(Around)11:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is so difficult. If these users really want the bit, it is a matter of two minutes or less to put together a request on this page, saying why they want it, and I encourage them to do so now. You can also do so, Cyberpower and I'll support you. This mass adding is wrong though, including for the geonotice reasons that Izno mentions below, where the privelege isn't really needed. I continue to oppose this request, and advise the crats not to appoint anyone who hasn't nominated themselves, as the procedure requires. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And if that's what the crats want, then so be it, that's what the crats will get. I respect your input. I just feel following process for the sake of process is, even if I just did establish it, a bit redundant given these listed users went through a more stringent process when they requested it initially.—CYBERPOWER(Around)12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Despite my user-right saying "bureaucrat", I cannot stand process for the sake of process. Personally, I would be happy to accept this grandfathering in, if community consensus is towards that. WormTT(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable to convert these to permanent. Based on their success at the more stringent process, no one would object if they did it the Vogon way, so let's not make them do it the Vogon way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Besides the procedural concern, I'll oppose indefinite extension for the editors above who requested the tools solely for the purpose of Geonotices, or predominantly for Geonotices (to wit, that's Cyberpower, Deryck, and Pharos), out of the "decrease the attack surface" concern and the fact we should sooner-rather-than-later have a working alternative that MusikAnimal will be hacking on soonly. I'm also concerned about Ritchie per MusikAnimal's oppose at his temporary IAdmin request thread. --Izno (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I didn't mind a stopgap list when we had no procedure. Now, editors need to follow the rules and abide the procedure they helped create. Chris Troutman (talk)00:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Crat action?
Hi 'crats, this has been open far longer than the new 48hr requirement; I'm very very involved so don't want to get involved with closure - but would like to know if there is going to be action or an actual denial here. Thank you, — xaosfluxTalk03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Late comments
I read this discussion when I was first ping'ed and recused myself from it because I was one of the nominated users. But since some users raised objections about expression of interest and the issue of geonotices, I'll respond here: Yes I would like to be considered a permanent holder of the IAdmin right. I also intend to hand in my bit in the future when a technical solution is implemented which will allow the routine updating of geonotices to be done without the IAdmin right, and only ask to regain the bit for short intervals when I need it. Deryck C.12:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Resetting a password
I would like to reset the password for a friend's Wikipedia account, but it appears she never entered an email address for her account. Special:PasswordReset requires an email address, at least for me (an administrator). Is there another way to reset a password, e.g. to specify a temporary password and require it to be changed upon first login? And if so, is it something I can do as an admin, or does it require a higher level of permissions? In this particular case, I am 100% confident the account was created by this individual; I imagine it's discouraged to take this approach in cases where it might be a different person. Any suggestions? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Admins, crats, and stewards cannot do this; only sysadmins can. Submit a phab task with project trust-and-safety (they usually handle such requests), but you should probably prepare for the worst case scenario. — regards, Revi00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion closed successfully. I don't expect much use of this as there is only one developer currently working on this type of bot. If this gains WMF wider use the access may be combined in to the existing bot group. — xaosfluxTalk13:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm requesting interface administrator for myself: I periodically make corrections to the sitewide CSS/JS files (often in the context of reusing styles/scripts on other wikis), and it would be more convenient to be able to continue making these changes myself rather than requesting them be made. I am also willing to handle any requests left on my talk page for such edits. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy100022:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
As I explained on WT:Interface administrators, I consider myself to be "soft" retired: while my editing here has greatly decreased from when I was active, I never stopped editing completely, nor did I intend to; the bulk of my editing activities just moved to other wikis. I've always left the possibiliy that I might return to full editing here one day. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy100009:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi 'crats. Would someone please review and process Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EranBot 3. I closed this in my BAG capacity. This account will need the new "copyviobot" flag added in addition to its existing bot flag. Posting here as this won't show in the normal reports since it is unusual. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Y
?
Done --Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: I've frozen the RfA pending closure, and are actively reviewing right now. No more !votes are being accepted. I don't see any reason this needs to be "extended" so the next update will either be a closure or a crat chat. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done there is no policy that allows us to grant this access yet, see all the notes on the request above. If the process will be delayed you could start another list of stop-gap users with essentially the same accepted temporary process used for the last list. — xaosflux Talk 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Request withdrawn -FASTILY 04:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
