| Revision as of 02:01, 10 January 2018 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,717 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:01, 12 January 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,717 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37) (botTag: ReplacedNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> | }}{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> | ||
| == Desysop == | |||
| {{resolved|With thanks to Salvidrim! for their service. Discussion of other permissions are outside scope. –]] 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| It goes without saying that this is not a simple resignation but a desysop for cause (]) but I'd still like for the admin bit to be removed right away instead of waiting for the case to "formally" close. I've made my peace and wish to move on without delay. If you wanna keep the thread open to await the formal ArbCom request be my guest, but please rip the bit off now. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 08:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Forgot to mention, I'd like to retain pending changes reviewer, new pages reviewer, autopatrolled, template editor, page mover, extended confirmed user (which might be automatic?), but if you think that ''automatically'' keeping one or more of these post-desysop is liable to be controversial, leave them off, I know the way to PERM. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 08:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Obviously involved) but mentioning that retaining the NPR flag when an AfC topic ban has passed would likely be controversial. I would obviously recuse from any PERM request, but AfC removal and the reasons behind it is something that I personally take into account when reviewing NPR requests, and I believe other admins do as well there. Any ‘crat is if course free to disagree and Salv hasn’t been banned from reviewing new pages, but I do think the AfC TBAN is worth noting on that one. No comments on the others. ] (]) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} <small>Non-bureaucrat comment</small> It's one thing to resign, but to resign ''immediately'' after the proposed decision on desysop just reached majority (), simply appears very dubious. Obviously this is going to be under the cloud, while unfortunately there is precedent () for regular user rights to be kept, explicitly asking for them here is rather distasteful in my opinion. Ultimately this is up to the discretion of the bureaucrat that processes the request. ] (]) 08:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course. Let it go for PERM if preferred. NPR is about using the Curation Toolbar and has nothing to do with AfC but I'm in no position to argue right now. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 08:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In the light of all that's happened, I don't believe NPR or autopatrolled are now compatible with Salv's account. Not that I believe for a momemnt that he would abuse them, but the formality IMO is a procedural necessity. ] (]) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I think the sensible thing to do would be to remove the bit and give the uncontentious rights, which, I think, are all the ones Salvidrim listed except NPR, which can be properly and thoroughly discussed at the appropriate venue, i.e. not here. | |||
| I'll make the change now. | |||
| Whether it is or is not "distasteful" or honourable, or somewhere in between to resign the rights before having them stripped is POV and should play no part in this discussion. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 09:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Dweller}} I think autopatrolled would be controversial too - not having someone check his articles. There was still some support for a total prohibition of articles into mainspace, and people would want his articles atleast be checked (even though I don't think he's going to do anything bad in the future) ] (]) 09:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW autopatrolled doesn't change much for me (just which queue my creations fall into hehe) and I don't create any significant volume of articles so it's unlikely to be any burden on reviewers either. So it's fine being left off if there is any opposition. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 10:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm slightly uncomfortable here. If consensus emerged not to have given this permission before, I wouldn't have granted it, but I already granted the permissions before this was raised. It's not definitely obvious that I shouldn't have granted it at the time and in the current case ArbCom do not seem minded to approve restrictions in this area. I therefore think if I stripped it off I'd be going outside of policy and what seems right. I have no doubt at all that ArbCom members will be watching this discussion and if they're unhappy they have the power to make things as they think necessary. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Alternatively, Salvidrim, if you request removal of the right, of course I'll do it. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 10:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Personal view (ie not on Arbcom's behalf): we voted on removing admin tools and not any other user-right. Unless Salvidrim! volunteers to drop any other tool, there's no scope for their summary removal on the basis of the Arbcom case, or for not granting them if that would otherwise have routinely occurred. That will depend on the bureaucrats discretion, I suppose the point I'm making is the Arbcom case is specific in its remedies and shouldn't of itself be determinative for anything other than admin tools. -- ] (]) 10:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please remove it for now, since it's clearly not ''uncontroversial''. I can always go to PERM at some future time. :) <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{done}} --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 10:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} {{u|Dweller}}, just my personal view also, I absolutely respect your neutrality, and will fully support the decision now that it's done, because in the end it is based on the discretion of individual bureaucrats. My only concern was in my limited time here, the two committee desysop that went through the full case (] and ]), every user right was stripped. I am just afraid that we are now encouraging future parties of desysop to quickly resign before the conclusion of the case to retain their user rights without needing to go through the process of applying again. ] (]) 10:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Interesting. We have some poorly worded policy in ]. It talks about removing "advanced permissions", on the same page that defines "advanced permissions" as CU and OS, not the admin bit. I don't think stripping back to zero is required by policy but I could be wrong. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 10:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Those are for emergency desysop, for example a compromised account. I'd guess stripping back to zero would make sense in that circumstance. In Salvidrims circumstance, personal view is it seems fair to take away what he wants to remove, and leave the rest. Arbcom found disruption in specific areas, and conduct unbecoming an administrator. We didn't find he couldn't be autopatrolled or a pagemover; if we'd wanted to have those removed also we would need to have voted on them. -- ] (]) 11:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I generally agree with {{u|Euryalus}}, and as all 'crats are admins they can grant rights on their discretion. My rough thinking was that as a desysop removes the admin bit, any additional user rights the user requests are the same as requests for any other user: they are not automatic, but in most cases they should be granted. There is a question of whether it is prudent to request it in this way, but it isn't technically wrong. I raised the NPR issue because if someone had been recently removed from AfC and had applied at PERM for NPR, they likely would be denied, so I thought it would be better for those to be considered at PERM given how closely AfC and NPR are tied (NPR is essentially the ability to Google index pages as well as remove pages from review from others, which corresponds with the concerns in the case to the point where BN wouldn't have been the best place to discuss it. Like I said, I'm obviously not going to be the one to review any future PERM request here, but thought it was a relevant matter to raise. ] (]) 11:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Ben, thanks for your five years of admin service. ] (]) 11:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I’d like to thank him for his past service. I’m just wondering about the <code>]</code> he granted himself as a part of sysop (<code><nowiki>09:42, 8 November 2014 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) changed group membership for Salvidrim! from administrator to administrator and edit filter manager (i don't plan on editing EFs, just see histories)</nowiki></code>), shouldn’t this also removed as part of desysop? — regards, ] 12:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :It's available to non-admins. But if there's disagreement on Salvidrim! holding it, the most transparent approach would probably be for that to be raised at EFN. -- ] (]) 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I left him a talk page note to confirm (it was not on the 'retain' list in the initial request above. He has never modified a filter. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::If he hasn't abused it, then leave it. That's my thought.—] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Historical precedent with Kevin Gorman and Rich Farmbrough is that abusefilter is kept for desysopped admins if they granted it themselves unless arbcom specifically says otherwise such as with the Kww case. ] (], ]) 14:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Per his talk page, moved this from EFM to EFH. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The procedures for arbitration clerks notes at ] under "Desysop" that "If the desysopped editor has self-granted edit filter manager rights, post a note to the ] for review." but this provision only dates from January 2016 and so I think post-dates the Rich Farmbrough and Kevin Gorman cases, it certainly post-dates Kww (as that case was the impetus for the creation of the noticeboard) although it wouldn't have been relevant then. For background see ] and ] where there was not a formal closure but 10:4 opposition to automatically removing EFM from those desysopped under a cloud. ] (]) 11:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Desysopping edit filter managers under a cloud == | |||
| Per the comments in the preceding section (but posted separately as this has nothing to do with Salvidrim!), when Arbcom desysopps an editor the clerks will post a note to the ] if that edit has self-granted edit filter manager rights. It would seem sensible therefore to request that the 'crats do the same (i.e. leave a note) if desysopping an admin who has self-granted EFM rights. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note, that the current practice is that determining if there is a cloud is generally a function of reviewing a re-sysop request, not a resignation. That being said, referral to EFN seems OK should it not also be requested to be removed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:01, 12 January 2018
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats. Click here to add a new section Shortcuts
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.
| Crat tasks | |
|---|---|
| RfAs | 0 |
| RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfAs | 0 |
| BRFAs | 15 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 19:23:11 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |