[JENKINS-72679] Revert #8791

[daniel-beck]

See JENKINS-72679.

#8941 attempted to address problems introduced in #8791, but introduces visual artifacts (addressed in #8954) and still leaves behind active UI elements.

Seems easier at this point to revert the culprit and start over, especially if we want a solution for 2.440.1.

Testing done

Revert PR, we're just going back in time. Opened and closed admin monitor, checked the link didn't remain clickable after the popup was closed.

Proposed changelog entries

• Revert changes to the appearance of the administrative monitors popup in 2.440 due to problems.

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[NotMyFault]

Does #8954 address your open concerns?
And if not, do you think it's easier to merge this PR reverting the change altogether and backporting the reversal to 2.440.1?