I've just been informed that FT2 (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked to have his administrator, checkuser, and oversight privileges removed well over a month ago, they did it, and nobody here noticed (until now, I suppose). Other than an announcement on his own talk page, the whole business was handled about as quietly as anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia involving such a controversial figure.

Ostensibly, he seems to have done this because he's too busy doing other things in "real life." However, I wouldn't say his contribs have dropped all that much since then (though they have dropped slightly).

Naturally, it would be the height of haughtiness and arrogance for anyone here to assume this had something to do with the resurrection of this old WR thread by our own FT2 critic Peter Damian, or even that these edits to the Sock Puppetry policy talk page made just before the desysop request were in any way related, so please, let's not just assume based on some sort of natural tendency toward doubt and suspicion based on past experience or other such "nonsense."

I'm all a-twitter with x-citement waiting for FT3 (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Jon

He said something to the effect that it wasn't done under any sort of cloud, so presumably he could ask for them back.

He also used the word "we" when referring to functionaries...

I'm sure he will, once everyone forgets the whole business. The question is, how long until everyone forgets the whole business? Since nobody noticed the resignation, maybe not so long. FT2 is certainly clever enough to know when to back off - more clever than Dave Gerard in that respect, to give just one obvious example.

The thing is, I was under the impression that there are (or were) several people out there who were watching his every move, checking his contribs on an daily (if not hourly) basis, etc., etc., but apparently I was mistaken. And when you think about it, a gradual decline in activity is much more subtle (and less likely to be noticed) than just vanishing all at once.

I actually doubt it...I've seen nothing to suggest FT2 is taking Peter Damien any more seriously than he usually does. I have noticed FT2's temper has gotten a lot shorter recently, from sparring with Jehochman on his arbcom candidacy, to recent explosions on the tail end of the current David Gerard mess.

I think FT2 is (temporarily?) burning out, knows he's running his mouth off in dangerous ways, and has handed in his "badge and gun" so they don't get taken away, should he seriously go off on someone. He needs to go one more step, though, and drop off the functionaries list. His chances in the ruling cabal are over...waving the "we" flag around the functionaries list just draws attention to that fact.

I noticed because I watch the user rights log and global rights log on Meta. I just assumed others would've noticed because of his talk page announcement so I didn't post about it.

I also saw Angela is no longer a steward.

This is news?

I was aware of this weeks ago (can't remember how) and didn't care much. I suppose people here are just disappointed at missing an episode of their soap opera and an opportunity to carp or something.

What do you expect him to say? This reeks of a plea-bargain.

Well, maybe FT2 just stepped in something in the barn.

I saw it, and I said nothing, because really....why feed the troll?

Personally speaking and at this late date, the more people ignore him, the better.

(Peter: has he still been messing with the NLP article?)

Plenty of people noticed. There's nothing to suggest it was done "under a cloud."

The only thing I find curious is that he said, "I've already removed myself as an oversight list admin and unsubscribed from the CU/OS lists" yet his recent contributions to discussions on Wikipedia make it seemingly undeniable that, at a minimum, he's still on functionaries-en-l. I guess that was just an, uh, oversight?

Even when Alison had resigned CU/OS she remained on Func-en, I believe Func-en is more of a "group of people trusted by Arbcom to process things" than a "has at least this userright".

I imagine there's soon to be a purge of who has access to the functionaries list, given the recent embarrassing leaks from it.

In practice that's about right.

Originally there was the old Arbcom-l, which hosted all arbs and all ex-arbs. The arbs now use that list just for committee work, and ex-arbs have a separate list. Segregation's good from many perspectives (privacy, neutrality, avoidance of some COI issues, etc). Separate but convergent, the August 2008 checkuser appointments increased the number of arbcom appointed checkusers from 2 to about 6, to ease Arbcom's workload a bit. CCing wasn't enough with the increased numbers. So the functionaries list was set up for users who routinely work on these issues, covering arbs, ex-arbs, checkusers and oversighters, and a very few others by invitation.

List access is straightforward: Joining is automatic on Arbcom, Checkuser, or Oversight. Access isn't tied to tools thereafter, but any loss of WMF tools or Arbship "under a cloud" automatically causes list removal too. For example, David Gerard and Sam Blacketer both ceased to be list members.



I don't really burn out. I'd be much more likely to fade quietly for a while, If you look at my early edits you'll see a regular peak-trough activity cycle a few months long. I also don't turn on others on a bad day, so it's nothing about possible misuse. The reason is simple. These are data tools. Attaching to a web page tool is foolish. The only time it's a problem so far is editing protected templates - a minor issue where help's available to any user if needed.

The suggestion was not misuse as such - but rather that the difference between having tools and not having them is that if you don't have them, they can't be taken away on some pretext as a result of having said something controversial to someone, etc - if you resign after such a thing happens, it's "under a cloud", but there's no precedent for retroactively putting a cloud over someone's former in-good-standing resignation.

As a former arbitrator, could you give me some good reason why the ArbCom conducts its deliberations on a secret mailing list? One can only assume, based on the usual quality of ArbCom decisions, that the logic being used to produce those decisions must be so poor that it would never survive if subjected to public scrutiny.

There should be., and I've argued for one.

I pointed out this exact issue at the current de-adminship RFC - if you resign, then act up, you can probably reclaim the bit later. I proposed this edit, and reason:

"This process... applies... to accounts that actually have that right in the first place, or could acquire it without seeking community or Arbcom approval."

"Scenario: user resigns in normal course of things without a cloud, then does something seriously wrong, then a year later seeks adminship back at [[WP:BN]] as he's not "under a cloud" and it's "old stuff". The community needs to be able to convert his self-request deadminship to a formally decided one if he has acted wrongly and yet could get adminship back easily, to prevent gaming."

diff
Follow-up
Any voluntary removal that can be restored by request should (in principle) be convertible to a formal removal, given sufficient cause.

Was done to me and it's been done to several other admins since it was done to me. In my case the cloud was fabricated out of thin air and thick lies.

I remember when you resigned. I remember a big, dark cloud.

Knock-knock-knockin'… ♫♩

Well if I were the head stewardess (or otherwise had any influence) I'd insist that nobody (0) be summarily reinstated to any position at any time for any reason.

That would be fair at least, and it would avoid all subjective arguments about whether there was or was not a cloud. Plus it would cut out all the shape-shifter/schrödinger/shell-gamer admins that nobody can hope to keep track of.

Oh but that's too h-h-harsh, what if I might need it later on eh? So okay then um… just don't resign.

As I recall, your resignation was the first time the "under a cloud" formula was used. It was a vile piece of arbcom pandering to vocal minorities - with all the injustice that retrospective legislation, passed to spite one person always has.

Since then the whole "under a cloud" mantra has made just as little sense.

There are two logical ways to handle this. The first would be to require any admin who resigns to face a fresh RfA - that's even-handed. It may result in a few fairly good admins not being reinstates, but it would probably also make people think twice before resigning with the intention of merely taking a break. If you resign, you resign the status given at RfA, and you need to the community if you want it back.

The second possibility is to take resignation in and of itself as "no big deal". That is, you can always get the tools back. However, this effectively makes the possession of the tools a seperate thing from the existence of the status of admin. RfA does not only give the tools, it gives as status, which allows people to pick the tools up and put them down.

The problem with the second case is that some people do wish to resign their tools in order to avoid a case or investigation which may well strip them of their status. Their ability to do so is an advantage both to them and to the community as it saves a lot of time and paperwork - and can render cases moot. However, to take Kelly's case, there was no way in hell that arbcom would have desysopped her had she not resigned - the findings of fact were simply not there.

I'd suggest that arbcom should ignore resignations of the tools, and that cases should proceed regardless. Even if the individual resigned the tools, arbcom (or a recall process) should still be able to consider whether they still merit the status of admin. However, people should also have the ability to resign the status too - and such a resignation would render any deadminship move moot.

Of course, I've written all this as if if I gave a damn. And that's the basic flaw in it.

I agree with this and have said so already.


I don't believe this is or should be a meaningful distinction. In fact I think it is actively harmful to elevate the "status" of admins beyond the few extra user-rights which it appears to entail on paper, and that doing this generally brings out the worst in people, allowing abuse to occur with greater certainty and impunity (and sooner).