User talk:NoSeptember/Desysop

Ed Poor[edit]

Ed Poor unsuccessful resysop request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor. Phr (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed wasn't active at the time, and so never requested the nomination and never accepted it. --Interiot 06:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant!'s opinion on the resysop attempts of involuntarily desysopped admins[edit]

The folowing view of Radiant! comes from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence

Evidence presented by Radiant[edit]

The Adminship Matter[edit]

The heart of this case, and a perennial cause for dissent in a variety of other forums, is our somewhat nebulous standard for adminship. As we all know, adminship can be granted through the community process at WP:RFA, and can be revoked by the arbitration committee. The problem is that these two forums are increasingly divergent:

Requests for Adminship has an exceedingly high standard of adminship. It is possible for a nomination to fail on any of a number of relatively unimportant matters, such as editcountitis, lack of a userpage, and using a swearword several months ago.
Arbitration has, by comparison, an exceedingly low standard of adminship. Although demotion is becoming somewhat more common, an admin has to do some very extreme things before having his status revoked.

A resultant problem is that this is becoming a source of mutual distrust for both parties. It is not uncommon for people who are somewhat in doubt to oppose an RFA because they did not trust the ArbCom to demote the candidate if he does turn out to be problematic later. On the other hand, in the recent Giano debacle it was commented that some arbitrators were reluctant to demote admins because they didn't trust the community to ever reinstate a once-demoted admin.

The circular reasoning is obvious, and the only way to stop the dissent is to reach a compromise. It should be noted, however, that it is not (or not yet) as bad as some people on both extremes appear to think. As I just stated, admin demotion by the ArbCom is becoming more common; and while indeed most renominations of demoted admins have failed, it is important to note that nearly all of the failures were for reasons unrelated to the demotion.

Circular reasoning works both ways. If either party can be convinced to change their standards, the other party will have increased trust in that party and respond by similarly changing their standards. That way we can go back to adminship being No Big Deal. >Radiant< 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to the above[edit]

The below is a list of renominations of ex-admins that failed, but did so for reasons unrelated to the demotion - such as edit warring, sockpuppetry or perceived abuse of process. There are generally a few people that hold a long grudge, but far from enough to sway consensus.

I have ignored the few RFAs that were just a few weeks after the actual demotion (Karmafist, Carnildo 2 and Everyking). I have also omitted the nominations for KI and Pegasus1138 since the public was not aware that these were in fact former admins. And of course I have omitted the nominations that were succesful.

Aevar Bjarmason failed because a few days earlier, Aevar used his developer status to give himself admin rights in order to perform a block of no particular urgency.
Chacor failed because of recent issues of edit warring and sockpuppetry.
Guanaco 2 failed because he was recently advocating that Willy on Wheels should be unbanned, and creating a controversial poll on the subject.
Guanaco 3 failed because he was not a very active editor in the months before the nomination. When he became an active editor again, his renomination succeeded.
JTkiefer failed because he had recently failed four other RFAs under a pseudonym.
Kils failed because he had barely any activity in the year before, and there were civility issues.
Stevertigo failed because his nomination itself was full of unfriendly statements against the ArbCom, and during the debate he was incivil to several participants.

It seems that any ex-admin demoted by the ArbCom has a snowball's chance of getting reinstated by RFA for the first month or two, and after that is treated by the process mostly like any other candidate. This is good, since an encyclopedia shouldn't hold long-term grudges against enthousiastic contributors.

Arbcom related controversy[edit]

What's the criteria for whether users are listed in the "arbcom related controversy" section? Is it different from the set of people who likely/certainly need to go through normal channels to re-sysop? If not, might those be noted at some point? (though I guess it's possible that only a small handful will be made clear by arbcom, whereas most decisions will be made by crats at the time of request) --Interiot 16:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use this category for those who were likely to lose their sysop status by the action of ArbCom in a pending case but had themselves desysopped before the case closed. In other words, they would have been involuntarily desysopped had they not acted first.
There are a number of other admins who were involved in cases at the time that they requested desysopping, but there was no indication that ArbCom was about to remove their sysop status in the case (at least not more than just temporarily). These admins are still listed as voluntary desysops. If ArbCom later imposes the requirement that they go through RfA to regain sysop status, that does not change the fact that the actual desysopping was done voluntarily without pending action by ArbCom to desysop. NoSeptember 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this list is in your userspace, or I'd edit it. Tony, for one, was surely under the hatchet when he resigned. I know, I was there; I read my way through more wordsmog than an ambulance-chaser blurts out in a month. If he hadn't resigned, he'd have been deadminned.

Once ArbCom rules than a deadminning, however voluntary, was done under a cloud and the subject must re-apply through RfA, it's substantially the same as a direct ArbCom deadmin. WP:HORSE. John Reid 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key is the willingness and inclination of the arbitrators to actually forcably desysop someone. Non-arbitrators outnumber arbitrators by a large ratio, so even if dozens of users call for a desysopping, you have to focus on the inclinations of the arbitrators who will make the actual decision. If you can point to any indication that an arbitrator was inclined to forcefully desysop either Kelly or Tony as a remedy, then a redefinition may be considered. Although a lone arbitrator who is out of step with the others is also insufficient to make the case (note Fred's call for Geogre's desysopping). Also, there is certainly a difference in setting a standard for regaining adminship, and proactively moving to have someone involuntarily desysopped. NoSeptember 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: ArbCom does indicate when it was prepared to desysop someone who resigned first. Note the "Konstable formally desysopped" remedy in a recent case. NoSeptember 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Absent a specific ArbCom ruling, the decision as to whether someone resigned "under controversial circumstances" will be left to bureaucrat discretion, should someone ask for reinstatement. To the extent that this page and Wikipedia:Former administrators serve as a community resource, I think that it would be unfair to "tag" someone's voluntary resignation as "controversial" unless there is a reasonable belief that ArbCom is actually heading in that direction, such as a proposal to desysop actually placed on the /Proposed decision page of a case by an arbitrator and getting at least some support. Workshop proposals, even by arbitrators, often have little relationship to the final outcome. That being said, I think Tony's case is rather unique. With Arbcom willing to make affirmative statements in the Robdurbar and ChrisGriswold cases without opening a full hearing, future cases like Tony's are unlikely to be replicated. Thatcher131 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the principle recognized in the Philwelch case that when an administrator resigns while an arbitration request or case against him or her is pending, it will be presumed that the resignation was under circumstances of controversy unless ArbCom declares otherwise. This was put into place precisely to eliminate situations such as occurred in Konstable and Philwelch, where some arbitrators felt they had to accept the case to rule on that issue. This would apply to ChrisGriswold, though technically not to Robdurbar (but I don't think a bureaucrat resysopping Robdurbar is something we need to worry about). Newyorkbrad 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I basically agree with what you both are saying. It is this section that raises some questions by some. A case can be made that ChrisGriswold should be added to this little list. The Philwelch case did have some somewhat contradictory principles, leaving more bureaucrat discretion than I think nyb believes is there. There was no move by any arbitrator to desysop Kelly or Tony during the Giano case, so they are clearly voluntary in my view. NoSeptember 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the ChrisG case, 4 of the 6 arbitrators who originally voted to accept the case agreed to dismiss it based on the understanding that he could not be re-adminned without an RFA (or directly by ArbCom) [1]. I think Tony and Kelly's re-adminship, should they seek it directly from a bureaucrat, would depend on that bureaucrat's comprehension of "controversial circumstances." Of course you are free to annotate your own page any way you want. How to annotate the project space page Wikipedia:Former administrators is a trickier question. I certainly do not object to Tony's removal of the case link under the circumstances. On the other hand it might be acceptable to add a line about "controversial circumstances" under Other and perhaps a fourth footnote that "controversial circumstances may exist for certain former admins. Maybe the ref #1 (must reapply) should be reserved for cases where that is clearly stated by Arbcom. Thatcher131 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two people referred to are a special case in that ArbCom in the Giano case specifically found that "controversial circumstances" existed and they would need a new RfA to reapply. (The original ArbCom wording was that they had each resigned "under [a] cloud" which was modified at my suggestion as I did not believe the tone or implications were appropriate.) Newyorkbrad 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that an RfA is required to regain adminship in these cases, the question is just a historical one: Had they not voluntarily resigned would ArbCom have proceeded to involuntarily remove their sysop rights? With Tony and Kelly there is nothing to indicate ArbCom was ready or willing to take that step, with Konstable and Chris there is suggestion that they were. Just because all four must reapply in the future does not mean their departure should be treated the same on these lists. Footnote 1 applies to all four, but the designation of voluntary or involuntary (a purely historical matter) is in question. I suspect the removal of the footnote by Tony was accidental, I think he only intended to remove the newly added link to the case (understandable because he was not compelled to resign due to the case). NoSeptember 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Former Admins resysopped in their new accounts[edit]

A few admins who have left the project and then returned under a new account have had their sysop bit restored without a new RfA. perhaps their old accounts should be removed from the not-resysopped list. I don't want to spill state secrets but the one most recently mentioned at WP:BN is clearly on-wiki. Eluchil404 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/article links[edit]

I just added a link to the ANI discussion surrounding the de-sysopping of Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason; please fix it up if it isn't correct, I'm new to this whole Admin project. --Iamunknown 12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good to me. The more links the better, so people can look up the context of these events. NoSeptember 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it by using the noticeboard search engine, see Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox. It is very useful. --Iamunknown 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]