Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why not just ask Arbcom?, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions

In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"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."

...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.

On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...

"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."

...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.

The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...

"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."

...while another wrote...

"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 authorized 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."

Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy, that "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."

This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.

I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA.

A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's "interesting" (perhaps in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) that the Arbs can see this so differently from each other, just like the Crats did. Plus here I am (notorious for being a critic of many admins and of our adminship system in general) leaping to the defense of admins perhaps "under a slight overcast" rather than a cloud. I think there may be a fundamental philosophical difference at work, about process, about where the dividing line is between WP:Process is important and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, or how wide and diffuse the field between them is. It's also noteworthy that some in the BN discussion were convinced that the rule was essentially invented by ArbCom and then codified in rather different language in the policy, but this may have happened the other way around (would have to dig in page histories to be sure, but I suspect that's the case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bureaucrats (including WP:RESYSOP) is not policy (or even "guideline") and never has been; the reason it has the cumbersome Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header at the top rather than the usual {{policy}} or {{guideline}} reflects the fact that no attempt to elevate it to anything more than an informal set of notes has ever been successful. As far as I'm aware, the resysop procedures never have been formally codified, other than in a few old arb cases like Scientology. The closest thing we have to a formal policy is the relevant part of the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, which is the rather unhelpful Administrators that did not resign in controversial circumstances and whose identity is not in question will be reinstated as per resysopping policy, which still punts it back to the 'crats to determine what constitutes "controversial circumstances". (There might be some RFCs regarding the limits of 'crat discretion from the time of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka and associated recall petition or from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 but I'm no great desire to reopen those cans of worms, and in any case that was an eternity ago in Wikipedia years and the much more recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy would have superseded any decisions reached.)  ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I first want to echo everything Iridescent said above me. The Resysopping section was added in early 2010 (BN discussion) and has since been expanded to incorporate the inactive admin policy (BN discussion) and note the principle in question. While the procedures have existed in a largely similar form for years — I imagine NYB's history and institutional knowledge will be quite helpful! — to my knowledge Iri is correct that in large part they haven't been officially codified. I suppose it might be helpful for the Committee to clarify how broadly they think Scientology's circumstances of controversy should be interpreted by Bureaucrats (perhaps by noting they need not be "formal," whatever that means), but I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's not for the Committee to make policy, so if the community wishes to codify, clarify, or change policy as to how Bureaucrats interpret the proverbial cloud, we can (and should, as it seems Bureaucrats themselves would appreciate it).

To wit, I largely agree with Callanecc and Alex Shih that there isn't much for ArbCom to do here. To repeat and paraphrase my comments at BN, the process is working, even if some folks disagree with the latest outcome. That there is disagreement on a particular situation from different Bureaucrats is not prima facie evidence that the process is broken, just that Bureaucrats sometimes have hard jobs. The part that I see that could merit clarification from ArbCom is in the next line of that Principle: Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats (emphasis added). I take that vagueness to refer to cases involving special authority — ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. — but if there is confusion as to what the Committee feels doesn't fall under 'crat purview, that could be worth clarifying. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I don't see much of a role for ArbCom here, it's up to the community to determine what a "controversial circumstance" is and hence develop a policy on that. If the community has done that at WP:RESYSOP ("purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions"), then that is the extant policy which should be followed. I haven't checked on the policy status of that sentence, although the notice at the top of WP:CRAT suggests it is a policy/guideline. On a procedural note, I don't think you need to notify each participant individually, the notice on BN is fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Amorymeltzer, point about "in most cases" I think that would only apply when a group with the authority to do so (eg ArbCom) says don't restore the tools, absent that it's currently completely up to the crat's discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These cases will be infrequent enough and different enough that the crats can decide each time whether or not they think it appropriate to consult arb com, and whether to do it formally or informally,. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 14 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
• The bureaucrats have said they don’t consider it their role to determine whether cases like these warrant refusing to return the mop, in favor of ArbCom action. I think this is at odds with our desysopping policy, but if the bureaucrats aren’t taking on that role, we need to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and whose role it is is definitely something which needs to be part of the RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to decide what to do in this situation, however. We can't allow a resysop which may be against policy to occur merely because no-one thinks it's their responsibility to enforce the policy. Perhaps an injunction until the community clears up the resysopping policy? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BU Rob13: presuming this is about Ymblanter, the tools were restored 24 hours ago. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I see Dweller has restored the mop to Ymblanter despite the controversy surrounding the request. For transparency, I want to make my position clear here. "Controversial circumstances" received no special definition in the Scientology case, so it holds its normal English meaning. If there is substantial controversy surrounding an administrator at the time of their resignation, they should have to go through an RfA prior to receiving the mop back. "Controversial circumstances" does not mean circumstances that would have led to desysopping. It is broader than that; it refers to any legitimate and substantial community inquiry into the actions or behavior of an administrator. It is important to note that intent does not matter here, nor do the words of the resigning administrator. The resignation need only have been under controversial circumstances in order for a new RfA to be required. Lastly, if there is no consensus among bureaucrats to restore the sysop flag due to a potential controversy, that itself is evidence of a controversy. Here, we had six bureaucrats supporting restoration and four opposing it. We had an additional bureaucrat (Xeno) who commented shortly before Dweller closed the discussion. He appeared to be taking a broad view of "controversial circumstances", which would have brought things to 6-5. We had at least one supporting bureaucrat explicitly uncomfortable with restoring if there wasn't a clear consensus for restoration among bureaucrats. This all paints an obvious "no consensus" result, which suggests there is controversy surrounding the resignation. While I have no doubt Dweller was acting in good faith, his restoration of the sysop flag was at best against policy. At worst, it was a bureaucratic supervote. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but I personally view it as the latter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there's a significant enough issue here a case request can be filed, absent that this is outside our jurisdiction to make a judgement on (and I would have opposed a temporary injunction for that reason). The issue here is that it's not clear where the bar should be (for example, is the sentence in WP:CRAT binding on crats as policy or not) and that needs to be determined by the community in an RfC, not by the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there is any need for clarification over principle 15.1.9 of the Scientology case. As it stands, the determination of "controversial circumstances" is based on the discretion of the bureaucrats. In the relatively infrequent situation where an administrator did not relinquish their privileges in a completely uncontroversial manner, a bureaucrat discussion should take place to allow consensus among the bureaucrats to emerge, which is what happened with the Ymblanter case. Alex Shih (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion on the consensus of this particular bureaucrat discussion is slightly different from BU Rob13, although I will openly admit my bias as I was in support of Ymblanter's resysop due to my interpretation of "controversial circumstances" being different for this situation. I think it's incorrect to speculate what Xeno would have voted; they concluded their comment with were there controversial circumstances? and refrained from voting. The one bureaucrat in favour of support (Deskana) had their concerns addressed after additional comments by Xaosflux, Useight and SoWhy. In their response to Deskana, the bureaucrat voted oppose (Useight) expressed that they are "okay" with resysop. This leaves us with WJBscribe and Acalamari to be the two remaining votes strongly in oppose of resysop. But despite of voting strong oppose, WJBscribe did not contest Dweller's close even though they commented in their talk page afterwards. Therefore I disagree with the assessment that Dweller acted against policy and/or participated in bureaucrat supervote. Alex Shih (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's the history of ArbCom's thinking in this area as I understand it:
  • The first time this issue arose was in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano (2006). The principle adopted in that case read: Return of access levels. Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
    • The original proposal used the phrase "under a cloud" instead of "under controversial circumstances". I was not an arbitrator then but I commented at the time that the phrase "under a cloud" was undesirable as it might be read to suggest more serious problems than a dispute on a website, and the wording was changed. The phrase "under controversial circumstances" or "under circumstances of controversy" was just a placeholder I threw in until someone could think of something better, but it seems to have stuck.
    • To the best of my knowledge, there was not previously any policy or guideline on this subject until the ArbCom adopted this principle. As I have noted before, this is one of the clearest examples I can remember of ArbCom's making policy, which is something it's not ordinarily supposed to do. Yet I don't believe anyone objected in this instance, either at the time or at any time since—probably because the policy the arbitrators crafted was in accordance with what anyone who anticipated the issue might have suggested in any event.
  • The next case that came up was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. In this case an administrator resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration, based on a series of bad blocks, was pending against him and appeared likely to be accepted. The resignation mooted the dispute (as a non-admin Philwelch wasn't going to be blocking anyone anymore), but the arbitrators seemingly felt they had to accept the case anyway to decide what would happen if Philwelch requested the tools back later. I wasn't an arbitrator yet, but on the Workshop I suggested adding a sentence to the principle from Giano, which was adopted with some modification: 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 deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.
  • ArbCom has repeated these principles in several cases in the ensuing decade and in some other cases has applied them implicitly (e.g. MZMcBride 2, Scientology, Macedonia 2, Fae, Media viewer RfC, Wifione, Andrevan). However, I can't recall a case in which an ArbCom decision has gone beyond them.
  • Based on these decisions (which are consistent with the current policy), ArbCom only has a potential role in this area if an administrator has resigned (1) while a case to which he or she is a party had already been accepted and was being considered, or (2) while a request for arbitration was pending. Ordinarily, an admin who resigns under either of these circumstances would need a new RfA to regain adminship. The "unless ArbCom decides otherwise" out was envisioned as a safety valve where the arbitrators found the RfAr request completely frivolous or there were other unusual circumstances, but I don't remember it ever being used.
  • Where the admin resigns while there is no arbitration case or request pending (even if there is a discussion underway at AN or elsewhere), under current practice and policy ArbCom has no role, and any decision on whether to grant a later request for the bit back is for the bureaucrats.
  • Whether "was this under controversial circumstances?" calls should be made when an admin resigns, or only later when the admin seeks resysopping, is a decision for the community, which as a practical matter is also delegated to the 'crats unless a policy is adopted. There are valid arguments for either practice (the best arguments for deciding at the time of resignation are that events will be fresh in everyone's mind and later disputes will be avoided; the best arguments for deciding later are to allow tensions and pressures to diffuse and to avoid debates are unnecessary because the editor will not be seeking adminship again). One data point that might be of interest is what percentage of admins who resign eventually seek readminship. If it's a relatively small percentage, which is my impression without having checked, that might weigh in favor of waiting.
  • Bottom line: I generally agree with the other arbs who have commented that under current practice this is not an ArbCom matter. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have nothing of value to say. I will just echo my colleges above that this is not a matter for us to handle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What I could say has been very well laid out by NYB before me. I will agree that this is not a matter for Arbcom to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm in one of those unique positions, where I wear both hats, but I thought it best to not get involved on the bureaucrat noticeboard for this one, as I thought people would give my opinion more weight than it deserves. "Clouds" are often a grey area did you see what I did there? - and honestly, I believe that if there is no clear "cloud", then the bureaucrats shouldn't be second guessing themselves. I know this gives admins an escape plan if they see which way the wind is blowing (too many weather cliches), they can duck down until it's all clear again - but actually, that's not such a bad thing - if an admin is causing problems, then perhaps they should simply be taking a break. If they don't know when to take a break, then that's a big part of the problem.
  With that pre-amble, I will leave the final decision to the other bureaucrats, as this is not a matter for Arbcom, explained well by my colleagues. Worm^TT(talk) 19:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]