User:NoSeptember/Resysopping policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

• This is a first effort at codifying the principles and procedures for resysopping admins who have been desysopped (both by voluntary request or involuntarily).
• Yes, you are welcome to edit and/or discuss this page (and I wish you would, since I do not have a fully thought out policy to propose at this time).

Principle 1

• The Emotion Clause - since stewards are prompt at desysopping and many requests occur in the middle of a dispute when the admin is stressed, a window of two weeks should be available for voluntary desysopped admins to be automatically resysopped.

Principle 2

• Involuntarily desysopped admins must go through an RfA. Admins who resign during an ArbCom case or serious dispute may be considered as not voluntarily desysopped, and ArbCom should be consulted as to if they believe the admin should go through an RfA or not.

Principle 3

• Grandfather Clause - Admins who were desysopped prior to this policy should not be penalized by this policy. The policy is intended to apply to future desysopped admins who (should) be aware of resysopping policy.

Principle 4

• There should be a presumption that former admins can be resysopped without RfA if there is no strong opposition to them.
• How can this level of opposition be measured? Perhaps the admin should announce their desire for readminship at a preselected talk page and wait a day or two for feedback from the community.

---

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision:

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. User 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.

Support:

1. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - Note, I have changed under 'a cloud' to under 'controversial circumstances' per the talk page Raul654 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

---

Other users who concur with the Return of access levels arbcom decision:

1. —Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)