Wikipedia talk:Former administrators

Links

Could we please have a link or diff to the reason why a former admin must go through AC or RFA? I'd hate for that little "1" superscript to get added to the wrong name by accident. I'll add some as time goes by, but a little help would be nice, and especially on future additions. Thatcher131 11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the involuntary list, the details are explained at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and we do refer people to that page for the details. The notes for the resigned admins are fine, but should be very brief. Also note that I have tried to link as many Signpost articles as possible to the list at User:NoSeptember/Desysop (by linking the article I am indirectly also linking to any ArbCom case, since they are linked in the articles). NoSeptember 11:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary resignations related to ArbCom cases

I see that how voluntary resignations that may or may not be related to ArbCom cases should be reported on this page is going to be an issue. There is a similar discussion at User talk:NoSeptember/Desysop. I invite people to comment either here or there on the issue. NoSeptember 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

Doc glasgow resigned in relation to personal matters. He's in good standing as far as anyone is aware. If it's decided by the arbitrators that he has a case to answer, then this will change, but until then nobody knows. The arbitration case was opened primarily to investigate another editor's conduct and, so far, it looks like they're sticking to that brief and to related policy issues. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riana

I removed Riana from the list because she's got her buttons back. I think she must have desysopped for exams or something. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H

I've added H, as he is no longer an administrator. Please see here and here for confirmation. Acalamari 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda and similar cases

Instead of edit warring over how to categorize this, how about providing a link or two that illustrates the circumstances without attempting to pass judgment on it? Would this satisfy everyone? Friday (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion would be good I think given the edit warring. Especially as having asked for the opinion of a steward, Jaranda has now reverted Darkoneko's determination of the matter. WjBscribe 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself, I thought he was another user that wasn't an admin, but what about similar cases. Naconkantari and Lucky 6.9 comes to mind, they resigned after alot of pressure from bad deletions, etc, should they be added as well. Also while I did to the WP:POINT deletion, it was only under alot of pressure (I was very upset on Jimbo comment, and I'm still am, I want to leave in good faith), and I only targeted that article, something that doesn't affect new or unexperienced users, and knowing that it will be restored within a minute. I never abuse my tools other than that case, and some people did worse before (like the deletion of WP:DRV by Doc glasgow over a year ago) and nothing happened. Thanks 131.94.145.132 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this needs further discussion - perhaps linked to from the crat noticeboard. In many ways this a local matter and should be decided by crats rather than stewards. Also the phrase "controversial circumstances" is ambiguous and seems to mean more than simply its literal meaning. I think the Arbs envisaged that the matter would be determined when someone asked for the tool back (not in the abstract at the time they leave) - this list rather brings forward the decision. As a side note, it doesn't look from the logs as if Doc ever deleted DRV and no one I've asked can remember him doing so, can you point me in the right direction? WjBscribe 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was over a year ago I remembered someone deleting it, now the old logs are purged I believe though. Thanks 131.94.145.132 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NM he just redirected it to Tony Sidaway user page back in June of 06, but that's not relevant. 131.94.145.132 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my own opinion on the matter. The clear cases of controversial circumstances are (1) giving up your tools where there is a pending ArbCom case that was likely to result in desysopping that didn't take place due to the resignation (eg. User:ChrisGriswold), (2) an ArbCom finding that the tools were given up in such circumstances (eg. User:Kelly Martin), (3) an overwhelmingly criticial RfC on user conduct where most commenators supported desysopping, (4) a request by Jimbo that you give up the tools (eg. User:Essjay). It seems to me that in this case "controversial circumstances" does not just mean circumstances that were controversial, but a real likelihood that desysopping would have resulted had the person not resigned. Jaranda lost her temper following an impolitic comment by Jimbo. He deleted his userspace and an article (which was quickly subsequently restored). I myself have trouble believing that ArbCom would desysop someone for that, though censure is certainly warranted. As such, it doesn't seem to me that Jaranda would be required to go through RfA were he to want the tools back. The "controversial" circumstances rule is not designed to be punitive of single mistakes, but to prevent short term resignations allowing responsibility for actions likely to result in desysopping to be evaded. WjBscribe 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I believe the gravamen of the principle as established by ArbCom (which was actually a bit of new policy, although ArbCom doesn't generally create policy, but no one seems to have protested that) is that one isn't allowed to resign adminship to avoid having one's administrator behavior scrutinized in an arbitration case, and then expect to have adminship restored for the asking later on after the arbitration case is over (or was never brought because it wasn't needed now). The principle regarding admins who leave under controversial circumstances (original wording "under a cloud" which I objected to) was created in the so-called Giano case, and the more specific rationale for it was explicated further in the Philwelch decision. So, the real question is whether someone was likely to have sought action against Jaranda for his actions the other day had he not desyopped voluntarily, and if so, would any significant action have been likely to be taken. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that sort of policy is required by plain old common sense- otherwise pretending to "resign" is a "get out of jail free" card. Friday (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that as a bureaucrat, I would not repromote Jaranda without an RFA. --Deskana (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access my account anymore though, so I don't care, but what about Naconkantari and others. 131.94.145.132 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends entirely on the circumstances. The only reason I gave such a quick response as to what I'd do in this situation is because I know exactly what the circumstances were that led to the administrator priviledges being taken away. --Deskana (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for it to be removed because I purged the password, it was never going to be taken away as far as I know. 131.94.145.132 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it was, until I told Drini that in my opinion I didn't think it was necessary to emergency desysop you. Thus my reluctance. --Deskana (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to the crat to decide, all I want is to remove that one from my name as it indicates I got desyropped by ARBCOM which isn't the case. But Jimbo also said that I should not have the tools as I'm immatture (that was the breaking comment that led to me to purge the passord, and hopefully this is my second to last edit on this site, (I'm drafting a farewell message) as I'm very disgraced here and being treated like shit) I wish I haven't found this place in the first place, two years out of my life for nothing. 131.94.145.132 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "controversial circumstances" ought to be plain common sense - we don't need a clear definition. However, I don't see why Jaranda's resignation should be treated as controversial; s/he didn't actually abuse the administrator tools, except once, and that was with the summary "to make sure I get desysopped". I disagree slightly with Wjbscribe's interpretation here, as I believe that Jimbo's opinion should have nothing to do with this; indeed, I do not believe that Jimbo should have the right to demand an admin's resignation. Only the community and ArbCom (who are elected by the community) have authority to remove admins. Walton^One 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's correct. Whatever one may think of the merits of Jimbo's role, he maintain ultimate authority (a bit like a constitutional monarch). ArbCom does not have authority because the Community created them, but because Jimbo did so and gave them some of his authority. ArbCom decisions remain appealable to Jimbo and he has the ability to remove/appoint arbitrators or disolve ArbCom altogether. As such, it must be the case that Jimbo can require an administrator to relinquish their tools. Whether this is a good think is of course a matter of debate, but barring a revolution, I don't think we can deny Jimbo's authority. WjBscribe 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the "controversial circumstances" rule established in the Giano case was a liberalization, not a tightening of the rules. When Ta bu shi da yu gave up his admin tools, I don't think there was any mechanism for him to just request them back, and he ran through RFA again to get them back. (Incidentally, he withdrew the first RFA after being a bit silly in the main article space, but was promoted some time later after another RFA was successful.) The opening up for a former admin to request the tools back is a more recent innovation. The first instance I saw of an admin getting it back without RFA was Doc Glasgow after a discussion with Raul654, and that predated the Giano arbitration, a case which I feel merely formalized a previously established practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trend to resysop on request started in February 2006, a month after Sarge Baldy resigned and turned around and did a reconfirmation RfA (see my list), and it was Raul who took the lead on doing this from the start. NoSeptember 09:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial circumstances

It seems clear that prejudging this issue at the time people leave is proving unhelpful - the flags on the list are not authoritative and are created unnecessary upset. Ultimately the matter of whether or not someone left in controversial circumstances is left to bureaucrat discretion save in a few instances where there is an express finding by ArbCom to that effect. So I've removed the <1> tags from all admins who I don't think ArbCom has found to have given up the tools in such circumstances and made a note that regaining the tools without RfA is a matter of discretion. Please readd it to anyone who should still have such a tag due to an actual finding... Do people agree that this is a sensible change? WjBscribe 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

(moved from Majorly's talk page)

Hey guys, on the general point... I suggest we split footnote one into two footnotes, one for when ArbCom has made a decision and one for when a bureaucrat has made a decision. The more specifically clear the footnotes are, the less disagreement will result. Cheers, NoSeptember 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, doing that won't actually resolve this problem, since we have b'crats on two sides of the issue. I have no objection to splitting the tags; but, since it solves no problem presently, it may just create more confusion. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose a footnote indicating that the status is uncertain due to divergent opinions of bureaucrats is a possibility. The point is, the footnotes should indicate specific facts known to be true, not be so broad as to allow them to reflect each of our personal interpretations of whether they apply or not, and I'm including the personal interpretations of bureaucrats who often disagree on these points as well. The split I mentioned above would certainly clarify the Mercury situation for people reading the page, and lumping the decisions of ArbCom and of individual bureaucrats is not a good idea, a bureaucrat's opinion can be ignored by other bureaucrats. NoSeptember 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the consensus at the recent Mercury BN discussion, I don't think that's true. A b'crat's opinion, by tradition, can't be ignored by other b'crats. But, of course, I'm not sure. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put this another way, I think the b'crats have self-enforced stare decesis to prevent conflicts among themselves, and the need for a mechanism of appeal. (ArbCom could theoretically be used for this, Carnildo taught us, but is obviously very much a "last resort") Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I'm talking about opinions about the principles of resysopping and whether it is footnote worthy on this page, not the specific cases which come up (which I doubt a bureaucrat would just overrule another bureaucrat, at least not without discussing it with other bureaucrats first for consensus). Opinion on what constitutes controversial circumstances seems to vary from "you practically need an ArbCom decision" to "a few opposed editors constitutes controversial". It invites forum shopping, once it becomes clear which bureaucrats fall on which side of the spectrum. NoSeptember 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure. I entirely agree that a general explanation, in the header to the section, of philosophical differences is appropriate and wise. I have no idea how to begin writing such a thing, but I also have no doubt that you are fit to the task. I would not support specific reference to this in the footnotes, or varying sets of footnotes, as I think that way leads to chaos. On the other hand, a disclaimer explaining the various ways in which the phrases and marks have been interpreted is something I heartily support. Xoloz (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you see why I made the original suggestion to split the footnote into two. An ArbCom decision makes it clear that there are serious issues with the user. It is understandable why a user who was merely denied resysopping by a bureaucrat would not want to be lumped into the group of ArbCom sanctioned users. It ain't the same thing. One time a resysopping was declined just because the bureaucrat was not familiar with whether the user had any controversy surrounding his desysopping. But no, I'm not saying we need individual footnotes to explain each case or anything. NoSeptember 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Deskana, Raul, and I think Rdsmith4 said before that Majorly doesn't need to go though RFA again to get his tools back Secret ^account 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps "sabotaging" the voluntary retirement campaign? ;-)

People keep removing this footnote. Why?

5 ^ Some wikipedians feel that admins should retire after a period of at least 1 year, so they can concentrate on other matters. (And also to prevent the impression that admins are the people in charge.) While these people can be resysopped at any time, they are unlikely to do so voluntarily.

I concur that there does not appear to be any evidence for consensus on voluntary retirement; however, I submit that such a consensus cannot ever be shown, if people continuously remove the evidence.

Apparently several people have voluntarily retired under this scheme; however, I would need to sift through page history to find each one. What to do about this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

An interesting summary: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22414 --8hj3gu7 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

I think there should be a seperate section/or removed for former adminstrator bots, as they weren't really "adminstrators" per say. I'll do it if there's no objections. Secret ^account 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead and do it. I've often thought that having the ex-adminbots lumped in with the admins who resigned gives a false number of that section. Acalamari 17:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and renamed the "Other" section "Resigned" as all of those users resigned the bit. wodup 06:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131

Why is he on there? 211.30.120.216 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]