Wikipedia talk:Administrators

External videos
Wheel warring

Suggestion on improving guidance

I would like to suggest additional text be added to the section on Grievances by users. My suggestion is to insert additional guidance after the first paragraph:

When expressing concerns to the administrator responsible, it is advisable to do so on the user's own talk page. It's permissible to use the administrator's talk page, but because of the increased number of users watching administrators' talk pages, this could draw a high degree of scrutiny to the discussion and may draw input and even criticism from other users and administrators, which can make it more challenging for the user to discuss the concerns in an orderly and civil manner.

The user can use {{ping}} on their talk page to invite the administrator responsible to the discussion and {{reply}} to respond. However, when the administrator indicates they no longer wish to continue the discussion, the user should respect this request and not continue to ping them. It should be noted that linking to an administrator's user page, such as with [[User:Administrator]] or {{u|Administrator}}, is also considered pinging. It's inappropriate to link to the administrator's user page in this manner in any discussion about the user's concerns after the administrator has indicated they no longer want to discuss further. To link to an administrator's user page without pinging them, use {{noping}}.

It's certainly not necessary, but I think it could be helpful in avoiding difficulty for users when raising concerns. Yes, it happened to me, but no, this is not about me. I think this guidance could be helpful for others that try to follow the guidance found here. Coastside (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) [modified to add noping, and some ce] 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A technical note - if you re going to mention things that ping, also mention {{noping|Administrator}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I modified the above to add a line on {{noping}}.Coastside (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested addition, however I don't think it would fit as guidance on this page. The suggested inclusion is really something relevant to all usertalk pages, rather than anything specific to administrators. If you comment on anyone's usertalk there's a chance a response may come from a third party. And with the exception of certain compulsory notices, you should respect any editor request to stop posting on their talkpage or sending them pings. Maybe propose it for WP:USERTALK? -- Euryalus (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll make sure , there is no more edit. Poudelkeeshab (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of adminship / "under a cloud"

Following a desyop request ([1]), a discussion started on the nature of resigning the tools "under a cloud", and the convention of determining if the circumstances in which requesting the tools to be removed were likely to be seen as avoiding scrutiny are determined at the time of requesting the return of the tools. The essay Wikipedia:Under a cloud gives further information on the matter, and has been updated as a result of the discussion so far. The discussion is copied here, where people are free to join in. The wording of policy on the matter is: "Former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. Adminship is granted unless one of these situations applies: / Adminship was resigned while "under a cloud." If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed." SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note in the event of a resysop request in the future, but Guy has been heavily involved at the Andy Ngo and Antifa pages recently, and has recently taken INVOLVED admin action by partial blocking an editor from the Antifa page. See this ongoing discussion. I have no comment on the merit of the block, but this is also not the first time Guy has requested a desysop amid questions of potential out of line admin actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

At the moment Guy is free to ask for the mop back, and it would be given. He hasn't resigned from Wikipedia to avoid being desyopped. If someone decided to open an Arb case regarding the incident, and Guy didn't turn up for the case so it couldn't be heard, then he wouldn't be allowed the tools back on request until the case had been heard. But if he was responding to the case, and he asked for the tools back, my understanding is they would be given - I'm not sure of a reason at that point why they wouldn't be because responding to questions about an admin's actions is compliant with WP:ADMINCOND. Guy has his own reasons for requesting the removal of the tools, but it doesn't appear to me that avoiding scrutiny is one of those reasons. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

When I asked for the tools back two years ago, I had a cloud of supporters arguing that I should not get the tools back because the resignation was "obviously" under the cloud. Even though nobody could provide a single example of misuse of the tools, the argument was that my behavior was "obviously" below the admin standards, and three crats in fact opposed the return of the tools. Based on this experience, I strongly recommend every admin who is resigning the tools in a situation which even remotely can be interpreted as controversial, to stop using the tools but keep them instead. (No opinion about the current case, though I apparently protected this article a few days ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As has been previously established, the determination of whether the tools were resigned "under a cloud" is done when the rights are re-requested, not at the time of relinquishment. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that’s why I said “ in the event of a resysop request in the future” and noted that this has happened before when their tool use was questioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any serious indication that Guy has misused the tools, nor that he violated WP:INVOLVED, nor that he is under any sort of "cloud". Certainly the thread you linked provides no evidence of any of those things, so I think it's worth nipping these insinuations in the bud. Separately, Guy has said that he's taking a break to manage stress and burnout, which is something we should encourage admins to do. You're weaponizing his distress, and his mature response to it, which is a really shitty thing to do. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Not that we'd determine anything on the basis of an editor whose main raison d'etre appears to be to edit-war on AP2 articles and opine on drama boards, of course. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions are fun to cast, but I’ve never been the subject of any noticeboard issues nor caused any dramatic ArbCom cases. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"the determination of whether the tools were resigned "under a cloud" is done when the rights are re-requested, not at the time of relinquishment" pithily put. I'm going to add that to WP:CLOUD. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never been sure why the convention is to do it that way; perhaps it's just because if someone's resigning the tools and never intends to return, then there's no value in raking them over the coals. But on the other hand, there's an argument that if an accurate judgement of "under a cloud" is to be determined, it would be better at the time of the resignation, when the events leading up to it are still fresh in everyone's minds. And if it was determined here that a cloud was going to be summoned, the person might decide not to resign after all.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear me. Do any of you guys want to rename this thread "witchhunters gather"? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: just to be clear, my comment has nothing to do with Guy's relinquishing of the tools here - I have no opinion whatsoever on that, other than that it's a shame to lose one of our experienced admins. I was commenting on the "under a cloud" process in general. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"At re-request, not relinquishment" is a stupid rule that is very unfair to would-be-resigning admins. The admin should know whether their resignation is or is not under a cloud, so that the admin can decide whether or not to resign under a cloud. Not telling them until after they resign is "gotcha!" I have no say here, but change the stupid rule. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In theory what you're saying could be true. In reality, I think the passage of time works to the resinging sysop's benefit. Issues that seemed large at the time don't when read later on and because people aren't as agitated about it either so the rhetoric cools off a little so we're able to put it into better perspective. And that's not counting that our current crat corp has repeatedly shown itself to be looking to find reasons to resysop rather than not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem many people seem to be having here. All Mr Ernie seems to be saying is, "If JzG requests readminship, here is some context that will assist in determining cloudiness." this is a good thing for the encyclopaedia because if it does indicate a cloud then we don't resysop someone who should not be without discussion, and if it is not the indication of a cloud then everyone can clearly see that and there can be no accusations of trying to hide things. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, mine has been considered "under a cloud" when I lost it in '10 because of the circumstances that led to it. (TL;DR, self-blocking was involved and this was shortly after CRASH badges were bundled in. I have no desire to be part of CRASH, and since the badge remains bundled...) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Readers will note I made no mention of a cloud in my response. I was providing a link to a current discussion that may have impacted this desysop request. Interested parties can now easily go check this discussion in the event of a resysop request and judge for themselves if there are any clouds without having to dig through page histories using old dates as guidance. I thought it was an involved action, others disagreed, but it will be for bureaucrats to decide in the future. There’s no need to shut this discussion down. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because this happens every time an even remotely controversial resignation happens. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Potentially controversial resignations need to be looked at. Especially if one admin makes a habit of it. Are you able to quickly check the events behind JzG’s last desysop request? It’s actually kind of hard to find. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Under a cloud#When and how a determination is made --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've quoted the above so it's clear that it was moved from BN. If that's problematic feel free to undo it, but I was really confused at first seeing a multi-thread discussion by one user. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• What I am taking from this is the wording "If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation". But that doesn't go any further. So if there were serious questions which were addressed and appropriately resolved, then there is no "under a cloud". I'm wondering if we should be clearer as to what "under a cloud" actually means. I'm thinking that "under a cloud" is really a situation where an admin has not followed WP:ADMINCOND, and so would have been desysopped if an admin. I think that's much clearer. SilkTork (talk)

Actually, I was thinking of WP:ADMINACCT rather than WP:ADMINCOND. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What is this section aiming to achieve? Here's my understanding of the events:

1. Sysop asked for a desysop, and it was done; no issue there.
2. Someone dropped a link to some ongoing stuff; linking to something "for the archive" is reasonable and has been in the past, but it was editorialized, which was unnecessary (and, of course, happens).
3. Various other editors, with and without the relevant position, chimed in on the editorializing, which was likewise unnecessary (and likewise happens).

In theory it should be:

1. "Desysop plox." "Done."
2. "Here's a link for the archive"
3. Perfunctory 'crat comment about how cloud determination at resysop, yada yada yada.

Right? Is a policy change needed, or just behavior? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Amory. The purpose is to discuss the issues around restoration of adminship "under a cloud". What exactly is "under a cloud", and when - by policy - should the judgement of that cloud be made. Indeed, should 'Crats be making that decision at all? If 'Crats decide not to restore the tools they are effectively desysopping the admin for doing something "cloudy" but without clear policy guidelines on what that something cloudy actually is. Should there be a section in this policy which says something like: "If an admin resigns their tools for the purpose of avoiding explaining or accounting for their actions per WP:ADMINACCT they need to re-request adminship through the typical requests for adminship process. If an admin wishes to request the tools back on request from the 'Crats, and there is a claim they resigned the tools "under a cloud" they would need to supply evidence that they did adequately explain or account for their actions at the time they resigned the tools". SilkTork (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork, that's clear — I didn't see anything up top with an aim beyond background/context, so it looked like we were just rehashing the particular case. I stand by what I said, but this is crystal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Re Barkeep49's response to my comment above, I think "works to the resigning sysop's benefit" is a bug, not a feature. Is there any analogous example from the real world? Do we ever see in the real world a situation where someone can relinquish something, think they're relinquishing it temporarily, but the "rule" is that they won't know if the relinquishment is temporary or permanent until they try to get it restored? Can you imaging if taking time off from a job worked this way? "Sure, you can take time off; we'll decide when you come back whether you were fired or not, because at that time, we'll be able to make that determination through the clarity of hindsight." It seems patently crazy to me to exchange "benefit of hindsight" for "not knowing whether you're taking time off or permanently quitting". There's something to be said for "clouds" being determined at the time, when everyone's memory is fresh, rather than later. Particularly on wikipedia, where the "cloud analysis upon reinstatement" depends on someone volunteering the time to investigate the original resignation circumstances (or it depends on there still being editors around who are watching BN, remember, and care). The rule as it stands is a filtration system that makes it so that only very serious or very obvious clouds count. Some may think that's a feature; I think it's a bug. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has many tempests in teacups and ensuring that only the most egregious cases can be denied resysop helps to keep the temperature down here. It is a good thing for our community that someone has to still be motivated and passionate at some point in the future, rather than in the heat of a moment, to press a case. Plus the idea that it's more fair to the admin falls apart is that the admin wouldn't, in many circumstances, be around to discuss/talk about their POV on any controversy raised. The reason it's a feature and not a bug that it's hard to deny someone a resysop under policy is because that's what was intended and so that's what has happened. Making it easier to deny someone a resysop is not doing them a service by "letting" them leave with a clear mind. I have supported other methods to make a deysop easier in the past and to make it harder to resysop after a time away, and anticipate I will in the future but this isn't the right way to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what I think about the issue overall, but Levivich's point about a filtration system resonates. As things currently stand, it's nearly impossible for an admin who got grandfathered in but would never meet today's adminship standards (I'll refrain from opining on whether or not the admin here is a fine example) to lose the bit unless they do something really egregious. We ought to moving in the direction of making it easier to cull admins whose behavior is borderline at best. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, that resignation looked to me like an admin who was heavily editing in contentious areas and was tired of having to deal with issues of editing as an admin vs as an editor and decided to take some time off from that, rather than an admin who was worried they were going to be accused of serious involvement issues and decided to head that off. YMMV, but I found the request for desysop pretty believable. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I brought over the previous discussion as background information only. The intention here is not to discuss any individual, but to discuss in general the implications of "under a cloud", and if we need to do anything with the policy, or if it is fine as it is. If people wish to discuss the actions of any particular admin, that should be done at AN/I, not here. SilkTork (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hasn't some of this come due to ArbCom not taking cases where the remedy would be "desysop" if the editor had resigned? Are they opposed to a remedy of "disallow summary resysop - RfA required" and otherwise allow such a case to go forward? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is reasonable to say both "it's not fair to the voluntary user to wait until later to determine cloudiness" as well as "it's good to be able to know what the context was". I have a third comment that kind of sits in the middle: it is good to give things time when memory is not fresh because time will give us the kind of perspective that we might not have had otherwise (both pro-resysops and con-resysops). For example, if an admin volunteer-desysops and someone brings an ARBCOM case against them anyway, that's over a month of time before we can know whether it was a cloudy departure. In general, I think immediate is good but less-immediate (but not The Future) is better. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• This sure seems like a lot of trouble over something that's supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL. EEng 20:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a reason that NOBIGDEAL links to a section entitled "History". I support the idea that adminship should be no big deal (see WP:MUSHROOM which I've largely written) but also acknowledge the reality that anytime you remove a permission it's at least somewhat of a deal (at least it is for me). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see a need for a policy change here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Amorymeltzer:, I think you missed the part where Mr Ernie said ...but this is also not the first time Guy has requested a desysop amid questions of potential out of line admin actions - while they later backtracked on their position of it being a cloud, the intent on establishing a future WP:CLOUD is the reason why it was editorialized. In theory, it should have been (and should be) a "summary" revocation of administrator bits and that's not how we've set it up but yeah, would make things easier if the mud-slinging happens at only one end of the process. Finally, I think Barkeep49 is right (and in my opinion, Levivich gets this wrong) in the sense that the current process "might" help in assuaging some opposition of a contentious admin - but in the end, it's also a risk, however, calculated. Once you hand in the bits, the next time you want it back, the community effectively has 24 hours to make their case why you should not get back the rights, so in the end, it's just fair game. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  ​I didn't, but I think we're agreeing. That line in particular is exactly what was inappropriate at this point. "Here's a link for the archive" is different than "here's a link where they took INVOLVED action; also tried to evade scrutiny before." The first is helpful, the latter is how we get here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• An advantage for leaving these discussions until resysop is requested is that it avoids long, drawn-out discussions, going over an admin's edit & admin history, in cases where the admin never comes and requests their tools back. What if 10 admins request desysop in a year and 2 return to ask for a resysop...should we really engage in 10 evaluations on the merits of each admin when it turns out that most won't be returning? I think I'd be less likely to relinquish my tools temporarily if I knew when I did so, editors who had a beef against me would argue that I'm leaving "under a cloud"...I'd just hold on to them and not use them which I don't think is the preferred situation.

I think it would be useful to determine what exactly "under a cloud" means but I'd advocate for having these discussions when the resysop is requested rather than having a discussion every single time an admin requests a desysop when it is unclear whether or not many will even request to be an admin again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the three examples on Wikipedia:Under a cloud sum up the situations I think fall under "Under a cloud". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Writing more policy seems WP:Creep here because it is a situation that 1) does not happen all that often and when it does 2) calls for Crats to dive into very particularized sets of situations. We all know that in some situations of major contretemps, it will be generally easy for Crats to say "cloud", and in others it will be easy for them to say "no cloud", which leaves a smaller fuzzy middle which requires some discussion and using their prudence and discretion, so flexibility will be the key, not black and white policy (fitting because clouds often seem a bit fuzzy around the edges). . Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think a change is needed; it's better to wait. As Liz brings up, if the editor never asks for the sysop bit back we wasted a ton of time discussing something that doesn't even matter. There's also the added benefit of hindsight since as Barkeep points out, we have teapot tempests quite often. Is it wrong that a sysop can resign without knowing for sure whether they'll get their bit back on request? Maybe, but if there's doubt then they probably just shouldn't request a desysop and instead wait for everything to play out (and in fact it incentivizes waiting for community procedures to finish). There's no requirement that editors use the tools, so you can take a break from being an admin without having the bit removed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see a situation where editing is getting a bit heated and you may feel you may be tempted to use the tools inappropriately, or perhaps you're not sure if you should use the tools or not, so better to put the tool kit down for a while. I think putting the tool kit down at such moments is prudent, and more a sign of good judgment than attempting to evade scrutiny. For me, putting the tool kit down at moments of stress is valid as long as the user remains available to discuss matters. SilkTork (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here's a question. Is an admin still an admin if they have voluntarily removed the bit? Given that they can ask for the bit back, I would say yes. If the community are concerned about an admin's activity, they should pursue that concern at the time even if the tools have been put on the shelf. If the concern is then aired and resolved, it might encourage the user to re-take up the tool kit sooner and get back on the job. And if it is aired and the admin is found wanting, then everyone is clear that the admin cannot get the tools back unless they go via RfA. I'm not entirely sure of the value of waiting perhaps several months or a year before resolving the issue one way or the other. SilkTork (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  I was actually thinking about this a while back, around Lourdes. I never went and posted at BN about it, and initially leaned yes, but I think the answer has to be no. Maybe it's a weird in-between point, but enough of our policies assume that sysop bit = admin, nosysop bit = not admin. In particular, admin inactivity clocks begin upon removal, so someone who voluntarily had the group removed then proceeded not to edit for 25 months would not generally be considered a sysop for the two years before than 25th month. Beyond that edge case, things like relist bias might still be expected to crop-up. There's also no desysop remedy available if the tools are at the beck-and-call but not active. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I fully agree with this particular point. An admin who has the tools removed (voluntarily or not) is not an admin. Irrespectively of how their actions are perceived in the community (again, in my personal situation, I was at some point told that since I have lost my tools nobody is going to listed to my opinion, after which I went to ask the tools back - but, for example, WTT run to ArbCom as a non-admin and was elected), there are so many points in the policies, for example, non-admin closures, which make it very clear that admin is an individual with the tools. In a hypothetic example when someone has voluntarily given the tools, then performed something which would get them desysopped according to ADMINACCT, and then asked for the tools back - I do not think this could be a valid reason for the crats to reject the resysop, only for someone to refer the matter to ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a very interesting discussion of this last year at User talk:Xeno/Archive 32#Let’s talk about adminship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A user without the toolset has to ask a user with the toolset to perform certain tasks. (That was one of the main reasons I became an admin, because I preferred to do those tasks myself rather than asking someone else to do them. Like getting a car rather than asking someone for a lift all the time.) A user who has been granted access to the toolset can decide themselves to use the tools or not. Some admins haven't used the tools in years, yet are still counted as admins because, if they wish, they can use the tools. A user who has voluntarily put the tools on the shelf, can - after 24 hours - still pick them up and use them. A driver is still a driver even if their car is off the road because they can get access to another car. WTT was still an admin when he ran for Arb. He still had the essentials of being an admin: trust of the community, and access (albeit with a slight delay) to the tools. Wikipedia:Administrators says: "Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools. / Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers after undergoing a community review process. They do not act as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved." That description fits the position of those users who have voluntarily put down the toolkit. Provided they remain reasonably active on Wikipedia, they can pick up the toolkit again after four and a half years just by waiting 24 hours. Of course, there may be a longer delay if someone at that point claims there was a cloud in the sky on the day they surrendered the tools. Or there may not be any delay at all if those who were aware of the cloud (but were told to wait before raising their concerns because the user was no longer an admin) had retired, died, forgotten about it, or were on holiday on the day the user asks for the tools back. Essentially, if someone still has access to the tools, they are still an admin, and should still be accountable for using the tools, and respond appropriately to queries. The whole notion of "under a cloud" is that a user is attempting to evade accountability by ceasing to be an admin - but if we still treat them as an admin, then the community can still question them regarding their admin actions. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think cars/driving is a great analogy, but to go with it, I think the better analogy isn't to the car but rather to the license. If your license lapses (or what have you), even if you fit all the criteria and have filled and filed all the forms, you are not a driver until you get the thing itself (or the temporary piece of paper, as the case may be). granted the technical ability would seem to imply needing access to the tools. It also later cites blocking as an ability of a sysop, which is one thing someone who could get the bit but doesn't have it can't do without delay; if someone says "active vandalism need admin" they could not take action. And I disagree with your last sentence: anyone can do something "under a cloudm" we just only care here for the purposes of resysoping. Nothing stops the community from expressing an opinion or questioning an action; the purpose of not autoregranting the bit is to allow community processes to take place that may have been put on hold. An active there-but-for-requesting-the-bit is just as free to be questioned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(I don't have a strong opinion about when the determiniation of cloudiness should take place, or what cloudiness should mean, but I do feel very strongly that if a determination is to be made at a time other than when the desysop is requested that there should be absolutely no discouragement to editors posting links/diffs to things that might aide that determination, nor neutral summaries of those links/diffs. Whether the person posting the link/diff/summary feels the resigning sysop is or is not under a cloud should be completely irrelevant (and should not be mentioned). If a judgement is to be made by 'crats then it is important that the judgement be as fair as possible, and for that all the evidence needs to be available. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason the "under the cloud" provision was added was indeed to deal with the problem of administrators who resign as a tactic for avoiding scrutiny. The reason we do not make an early determination of whether or not a resignation occurred under a cloud is that it is unnecessarily divisive and contentious. The traditional meaning of under a cloud has been editors whose conduct was sufficiently egregious that an involuntary revocation of adminship (ordinarily as a result of arbitration) was a likely outcome. These situations are rare. UninvitedCompany 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "exceptional circumstances to this general principle" is vague

The section "Exceptional circumstances" contains the following first sentence, "There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle."

The use of "this general principle" is vague. Does it refer to the previous section,"Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")"? Structurally, if this is about the previous section, why isn't it in the previous section as perhaps a subsection

And about the principle involved, what is it? It seems if it is an important principle it should have a clear statement of what the principle is. In reading the previous section, what I get out of it is "Wheel Warring is bad". Is that the general principle?

Could someone clear this up for me and maybe revise the page.r

Osomite ^hablemos 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Janitors"

@Cryptic: I saw your reversion of the "janitors" label.[2]

If memory serves - and my memory is as tight as a metal sieve - the term "janitor" and "janitorial duties" was a lot more common on en-wiki when I first joined in the late '00s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's the name for sysops on Wikiversity. I've seen used tongue-in-cheek around here, but not enough that it needs bolded in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If this were 2007 yeah, it might deserve a mention, maybe even a bold spot in the first sentence. But it's use has waned enough that if it were still there now, I might recommend removing or at least de-emphasizing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikiversity term for what we call administrators is actually "custodian" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am an employee of United Nations Federal Credit Union(UNFCU). I wish to make the below updates to UNFCU page. Kindly assist. Thank you very much!

Change request to UNFCU page​ Information to be added: CEO- John Lewis Information to be added: Executive Vice President- Pamela Agnone Information to be removed: CEO- William Predmore

• Explanation of issue: William Predmore retired on 31st December 2020 and John Lewis has been named as the new CEO of UNFCU as of January 1st 2021
• References supporting change: https://www.unfcu.org/leadership/