Wikipedia talk:Under a cloud

Process of development

Thanks Doug Dweller, looking forward to this being developed. Several items that come to my mind (and I'm hesitant to link to the item that brings this about simply because I think it a bit unkind to single out individuals) are possible reasons for resignation, and the state it was requested in.

• a discussion (perhaps on a AN or AN/I board) about an admin. who may have misused the tools. (either by accident or poor judgment)
• a proposal by the community for the removal of said tools. (was it simply one or two people with little discussion)
• a growing consensus to remove the tools by the community. Was the thread closed determining that there was consensus to remove tools?
• was an RFAR proposed and/or accepted? (I ask this because at this time I have yet to see the community be able to remove admin. rights without the declaration from arbcom)

What I'm thinking is that perhaps when and admin request the removal of their own tools now that crats have the ability to do so on a local level is that perhaps there should be a log of these actions that includes a note and/or link to the circumstances to help determine if there is a "cloud" — Ched :  ?  12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

functionary

I noticed you used the term "functionary", and while technically accurate, I don't often see that term used for an administrator or see admin listed at Category:Wikipedia functionaries. Should this be reworded? — Ched :  ?  13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Scrutiny

I was about to say same re. functionary.

But also, in a manner that is seen as an attempt to evade scrutiny - that isn't the way I view it, at all; that makes it sound like deliberate deceit. It could be, of course - but isn't always. It could just be that, during some issue, they've got so fed up they've resigned. The important point is, that there's nothing necessarily negative about the act of resigning during some issue. Several times, I've seen people resign "under a cloud" for absolutely impeccable reasons. It still, of course, means that their return might require RfA, but I don't think it is right to characterize the act of resignation as an "attempt to evade scrutiny".  Chzz  ►  08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a very confusing term as well. What is the definition of "scrutiny"? I'm talking about cases like Rlevse who for most of the community clearly resigned under a very dramatic cloud, but prior to when he resigned there wasn't calls for his immediate desysopping. I've added recall, (which is the most obvious example), but I want to see the bureaucrats discuss more about it. Secret ^account 01:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Probable

I've added "to avoid any situation or board discussion where a community sanction is probable", which would include someone leaving before an Arb case was filed, while misdeeds were brought up at ANI or AN. I was careful to use "probable" not just "possible", and would have to rely on the judgement of the community to determine after the fact if the ANI case was a routine complaining about an admin, or if there was a real concern and clear evidence of obvious abuse of tools or gross violation of editing policy that still violates the behavioral expectations of Admin. This wouldn't bar them from seeking the bit via RfA, of course, but bailing out (retiring) before an Arb case can be compiled and requested shouldn't be a convenient way to avoid it being "under a cloud". It would be up to the reviewing Bureaucrats to decide if sanctions were actually "probable" rather than simply "possible" when reviewing the request for resysoping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted you. The term "community sanction" is far too ambiguous, and does not relate to administrator responsibilities: simply put, the community does not (at this time) have a process to sanction administrators for administrator actions. Horse before the cart, please. Before re-adding this, work with the community to develop a process by which the community can directly sanction admin actions. To be clear, "sanction" does not mean "criticize" or "trout" or "disagree with". It means actual sanctions. Risker (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have worked with the community via WP:RAS. You raise an interesting point, it seems some middle ground is needed to cover the worst of situations that are yet to have been filed to Arb, ie: they "retired" before it could be, knowing Arb isn't inclined to hear a case in abstentia. Would you agree there is some middle ground that needs clarity? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Amending this

I think as part of the fallout from the current Arbcom case, there needs to be some centralised discussion about various pages. I've started a list of them at WP:BN. As well as ensuring the wording here is watertight and consensus-based, we really ought to consider is making this a policy, rather than an essay. --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to turn this into a policy. The discussion of resignation of adminship under controversial circumstances should be part of WP:ADMIN. It is an extremely bad habit to create new, separate policies for every minor issue. And this is a minor issue: the subject only arises about twice a year, and is usually very promptly addressed. Keep things centralized, and it will stay up to date and in step with other policies; one of the biggest issues that the community faces is the proliferation of policies that address edge issues, often in contradictory ways. It only makes things harder to administer, not easier. Risker (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I like your suggestion below of making this a redirect to the appropriate part of WP:ADMIN. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. We do need some clarity on the issue of what is or isn't "a cloud" (or "controversial", per Risker below) simply to avoid confusion within the community. It would be better there than here, as part of policy rather than an essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New title is needed

I strongly believe this essay should be retitled. The phrase "under a cloud" is childish and insulting, and conjures the mental image of a slew of Wikipedian Rob McKennas. Let's call it "Resigning adminship under controversial circumstances"; I can live with the current title being a redirect. Risker (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support that. With the latest spat on user categorization, I can already see Category:Wikipedian Rain Gods materializing; just kidding on that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• I think the title is fine. It is of historical usage. It is appropriately non-specific. "Under a cloud" has some allusion to the situation being not entirely known and subject to clarification by illumination. I don't oppose a better title, but to suggest being unable to live with something is excessively combative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been opposing the use of this wording for six years, ever since it was first suggested in the 2006 "Giano" arbitration case. "Under controversial circumstances" is better. The wording also could be counterproductive: if I had made a major misstep as an administrator and were being asked to resign, I might consider doing so "while acknowledging that there are controversial circumstances, so I would need to run a new RfA if I wanted to become an administrator." It would be much harder for me to resign "under a cloud" with its unnecessarily ominous overtones. The underlying concept is a resignation (or long-term inactivity, I suppose) motivated or reasonably appearing to be motivated by the desire to avoid scrutiny, as opposed to one of the myriad other reasons that administrators or functionaries resign or take breaks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Does this concept apply equally to an explicit resignation as to a cessation of activity followed by a procedural removal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There's some disagreement about that, which is the subject of an RfC at the moment to try to ascertain how the community would like these situations to be handled. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Where's the RfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
      • See the various threads on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• The suggested title does sound more professional and provides more clarity. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• I concur with the proposed retitling. Our policies and guidelines should be titled and written in plain English, never jargon. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• While "under controversial circumstances" is a more precise description, it in itself needs elaboration, which is the purpose of the essay.

  I do not think it is accurate to call "under a cloud" jargon. It is Wikipedia vernacular. It has been used historically, and continues to be used beyond any influence of this essay. So, if renamed, not only should a redirect remain, but the lede should be clear that this page elaborates on what is meant when people say "under a cloud".

  However, instead of a rename, I think the concept should be written into policy (probably at Wikipedia:Administrators, although it applies to other roles as well) succinctly, accurately and in formal language, and that this page remain as in informal essay where nuances to the meaning can forever be entertained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the title is fine. It's equally as "childish" I suppose as "Village Pump" (which makes no sense to me whatsoever, yet people seem fixated to keep it). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• "Under a cloud" is a perfectly valid turn of phrase, and it fairly accurately describes the scenario envisaged by this essay.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of adminship / "under a cloud"

Discussion on matters related to restoring admin rights in situations that may be regarded as "under a cloud" taking place on the admin policy page: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship_/_"under_a_cloud". SilkTork (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)