89:"Resigning under a cloud" means a user who resigns from a position of trust in dubious circumstances, where their conduct might otherwise have come under scrutiny or sanction and the resignation may have prevented that scrutiny or sanction taking place. Such a user may be refused the right at a later time to automatically reclaim that role without going through usual processes to confirm they still have the community's trust.
160:
128:"stale". Also if time lapses the community may not feel it is sensible to reopen matters from potentially years ago to assess the issue after a long lapse of time. The concern also arises because resignation may be seen as having resolved the issue and therefore the matter may have been dropped by others to avoid examining an issue that is no longer in need of remedy.
24:
80:
127:
The term "under a cloud" was coined to prevent abuse of this approach. A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and who steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as fit to resume the role at will once the question has become
123:
As a voluntary community, many of
Knowledge's roles are self-nominated, affirmed by other users, and then held indefinitely or for a fixed term on a basis of trust. A user in such a role can usually step down by personal choice, and later when circumstances improve or they feel able, may resume the
268:
Similarly, when a user resigns in good standing for good-faith reasons, and a concern later comes to light, but the resignation was for unrelated reasons in good faith and unlikely to be down to possible exposure or review of the concern, they may or may not be sanctioned, but they too would not
264:
then avoid the concerns of their peers, does not cease engaging in discussions about their behavior, and does not seek to evade dialog or prevent resolution of the concern, might or might not be sanctioned in the end, but they would not usually be described as resigning "under a cloud" since the
114:
describes a user who resigns from a position of trust in the community that must be formally granted or agreed, in circumstances where there may be grounds to believe this was done rather than face imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction over possible inappropriate conduct or activity of theirs.
191:
or perhaps consensus was reached to leave the matter a particular way at the time. This often happens in cases where passage of time is needed to decide what is fair, where demanding reaffirmation could actually be seen as unfair or impractical, the case needs more careful thought, or there are
131:
Accordingly, a user who steps down in such a way that it seems they have evaded their conduct being actually assessed by the community, or their fitness to the role being affirmed, may be refused the right to automatically reclaim that role later without going through the usual process again to
248:
The key point is usually that the user resigned in circumstances where it was foreseeable they might be held to account on a matter, and there seems a plausible chance their resignation was in part designed to evade or frustrate formal discussion of their conduct, or to cause discussion to end
179:
Having said that, the community may still look for assurance on all aspects of conduct - including any action that appears to have been intended to prevent or avoid scrutiny, or confirmation that past issues are unlikely to recur - in any review of the matter or as part of the decision to
175:
For example, a user may have resigned from a role (or "dropped the bit") in contentious circumstances not for evasion, but to reduce harmful drama, because the dispute was not worth it to them, stress, others' feelings, or other issues and reasons not obvious
207:. All such requests are subject to a scrutiny period, during which the question of whether the resignation was under a cloud may be raised by any user. The Bureaucrats will assess the arguments and make a determination. Occasionally, the
265:
matter was allowed to resolve and a conclusion reached at the time. (This might be the case for someone who resigns early on in a matter because of respect for community concerns.)
230:
200:
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.
256:
has negated, frustrated or impeded usual resolution or sanction, the term is generally not used when this has not happened. For example:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
40:
269:
normally be described as resigning "under a cloud" since there was no 'cloud' imminent or threatening at the time of resignation.
279:
103:
This page is about the
Knowledge community term "(Resigning) under a cloud". For the essay on concept clouds in Knowledge, see
132:
confirm they do in fact have the community's trust. "Under a cloud" is most often relevant to users who have resigned from
133:
187:
Because these situations can vary widely, exceptions may exist in some cases, for example reinstatement may be by
294:
104:
242:
44:
54:
208:
32:
167:
It is important to note that this phrase describes circumstances of a resignation. It does
137:
252:
Because the term signifies a user who resigns in the face of an actual or likely issue,
145:
141:
288:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
204:
188:
149:
203:
Users who have resigned their admin status may request a reinstatement of it at
92:
The term is purely descriptive of the circumstances of resignation and
154:
74:
18:
171:
by itself say anything adverse about the user or situation.
237:
Principles for establishing whether a cloud exists/existed
249:
prematurely (or had that effect even if not intended).
211:
may be asked for an opinion, or offer one unrequested.
62:
192:
privacy related issues or other issues to consider.
219:A non-exhaustive list of scenarios would include:
8:
226:to avoid a proposed or accepted ArbCom case
94:does not automatically imply any wrongdoing
260:A user who resigns from a role but does
7:
196:When and how a determination is made
215:Examples of resigning under a cloud
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
41:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
245:and Arbcom make such judgements.
124:role by simple request to do so.
158:
78:
22:
280:Knowledge:Former administrators
1:
223:to avoid a de-admin procedure
311:
102:
52:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
86:This page in a nutshell:
119:Background and handling
105:Knowledge:Concept cloud
134:higher levels of trust
110:On English Knowledge,
209:Arbitration Committee
43:, as it has not been
185:
184:
101:
100:
73:
72:
302:
295:Knowledge essays
231:recall procedure
162:
161:
155:
82:
81:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
310:
309:
305:
304:
303:
301:
300:
299:
285:
284:
276:
254:and by doing so
239:
217:
198:
159:
121:
108:
79:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
308:
306:
298:
297:
287:
286:
283:
282:
275:
272:
271:
270:
266:
238:
235:
234:
233:
227:
224:
216:
213:
197:
194:
183:
182:
163:
138:administrators
120:
117:
99:
98:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
307:
296:
293:
292:
290:
281:
278:
277:
273:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
255:
250:
246:
244:
236:
232:
228:
225:
222:
221:
220:
214:
212:
210:
206:
201:
195:
193:
190:
189:Arbcom appeal
181:
177:
173:
172:
170:
164:
157:
156:
153:
151:
147:
143:
142:functionaries
139:
135:
129:
125:
118:
116:
113:
112:under a cloud
106:
97:
95:
90:
87:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
261:
253:
251:
247:
240:
229:accepting a
218:
202:
199:
186:
178:
174:
168:
166:
165:
130:
126:
122:
111:
109:
93:
91:
88:
85:
30:
243:Bureaucrats
241:Ultimately
152:and so on.
150:arbitrators
146:bureaucrats
31:This is an
180:reinstate.
289:Category
274:See also
176:on-wiki.
63:WP:CLOUD
55:Shortcut
205:WP:BN
33:essay
262:not
169:not
291::
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:-
107:.
96:.
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.