Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship

This page is for 'meta-discussion' about the RFC process itself (where CDA will put to the community), and what will constitute acceptance of the process, and how to begin using the process.

NOTE: This is NOT the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or problems:

• The CDA proposal itself (which this page discusses) is here
• To discuss the CDA in broader terms, go to: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

• For history and context, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall and the archives of this page.

'To do list' moved from draft RfC page, to be merged into here

• Complete above summary
• Transfer summary to WT:CDA for implementation
• Prepare the RfC by:

Summary of Summary for "Background" section

Decide on end date

Creating FAQ inc (from discussion):

Creating and expanding a section which compares CDA with ArbCom de-Admin and really answers the question "Why?":

1. Speed - would CDA be quicker than ArbCom?

2. Throughput - would it relieve the strain on ArbCom? Is ArbCom struggling at the moment?

3. Threshold - would it make de-Admin more likely? would it change the type of actions that would lead to de-Adminship?

4. Community vs Heirarchy - would it disrupt the so called "power structure" in WP? Would this be a good thing?

5. Involvement - would it increase the retention of non-admin contributors

• Deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC
• Publicity on posting RfC per the above section.

We need to continue to observe here for late comments but soon, I think, it will be time to move the discussions on to WT:CDA and Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. I'd like to complete a quick analysis of the answers to Proposal 5 first - should get to that tomorrow. Ben MacDui 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at #5 again, I think there are a few ideas that might go into an FAQ, but nothing I can see that would materially change the "result". Ben MacDui 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to make a specific secion comparing CDA with Arbcom de-admin. All important points about the benefits of CDA can be made in the main summaries. CDA is not just a fairer/better process than existing ones (need it actually replace Arbcom de-admin - or whatever else there is - anyway?) - it is a new and necessary thing in itself. Over comparing could muddy and over-complicate matters - CDA can speak for itself, so we should be careful here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check what I say if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of three pages editors should be looking at, at this point, in regard to developing what will go before the community:

• Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example
• Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ

Did I miss anything? Just trying to keep us all on the same page (pages!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the draft RFC on the project page. Ben MacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: After we have the proposal finalized, might it be a good idea to full-protect the first two of those three pages linked just above, so that they don't get modified ad hoc while the community is, for the most part, reading them for the first time? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree this could be useful, although I am not sure how it squares with Protection policy. Ben MacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• comment: I really don't think we need the FAQ. I think it rather overcomplicates and oversimplifies at the same time. They very often fall short - and I can't see things in it that aren't better stated properly elsewhere. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the FAQ yet, but I will. I think the issue is editors who say the status quo is fine so why do we need this at all, and troll ask us to name admins who would be the first subjects of the process. The trick will be to (a) have an answer for those objections that predictably will be made, and (2) not accidentally raise new questions needlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just read the FAQ. I think it will serve a very good purpose during the final community process and should be included. People will have some of these questions. But I would suggest shortening it, so as to answer the needed questions without raising new ones. I'll explain that, and make other tweaks, at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Older 'To Do' for this page

To do

Process 1: Analysis of Draft RfC Analyse the draft RfC and produce a table of results. Draw conclusions about those results. Amend the Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship as appropriate. First attempt completed. Process 2: RfC - what to include Figure out what the RfC needs to include. Summary of Summary at WT:CDADR for "Background" section Wikipedia:Administrators is a policy and if the WP:CDA receives community support would need to be amended. This should therefore be referred to as part of the formal RfC (see below). Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is described as a "guide to current practice". Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is described as a "process" and is not listed as a policy or guideline. This suggests that in addition to any useful background per WT:CDADR the RfC should state that the proposal is to: Amend the policy Wikipedia:Administrators..... Amend WP:CDA so that it states that it is a "process" Implement WP:CDA via the Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship, which will be described as a "guide to current practice". Ideally the main proposal would be a yes/no question with the usual sections for support/oppose/neutral although there may need up being a choice between competing options if the current process does not resolve this. Or, to put it another way - deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC. Process 3: Complete FAQ Under construction at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ Add it to WP:CDA NavBox Done - although if CDA is enacted this would ideally become a template. Process 4: Timing Agree "going live" date for RfC. Post RfC Post Publicity

Reorganization

As per the meta-meta discussion at what is now /Archive 2, I have shuffled everything around in order to consolidate discussion to the CDA guide pages and the RFC draft pages. This should help with the confusion that people have been having when coming into this late in the game. Meta discussion about the RFC itself goes here, discussion about the process under proposal goes on the RFC draft talk page. It's kind of backward I guess now that I write it down, but that was what we had discussed. If someone wants to swap them, that would be fine with me. Just keep the archives with this page. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Update from WT:CDADR

The following are the results from the Draft RfC discussion as at 11:45 am GMT on 9 January 2010. These changes have been all been addressed prior to going to the RfC itself. Ben MacDui 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Publicity

Proposal 3: Community Support for changing:

"Nomination by the Community at large requires the signatures of no fewer than 10 editors in good standing (defined below), within a period not longer than 3 days. Signatures must be placed in the nomination area of the requests, as a simple signed bullet point."

to "not longer than 7 days".

Concrete percentages

The only proposal with genuine support was

5.4 Add to the current wording:

• "Thus, for an Administrator to be de-sysopped, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supports de-sysopping. Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb, above ~80% support for de-sysopping would be acceptable; while support below ~70% would not be, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion."

More on this subject needs to go into the Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ currently under construction.

Unless there is a reason for it I (MacDui) suggest removing the tildes.

Possible outcomes short of full desysoping

Support for 8.2

"Instead, allow for more discussion and not simple bulleted !votes." This diff shows how I addressed this issue. Needs a few more eyes I think. Ben MacDui 16:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarify restoration

11: No serious opposition (although little support for) adding: "without the permission of the Arbitration Committee or another person or group empowered to lift those restrictions."

Canvassing

15 Limited support for "Parties to the CDA process may legitimately contact other editors to provide input, but must at all times do so in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS."

Improve language

These specifics received support.

Under "What this process is not":

Dispute resolution or other discussions: Dispute resolution should proceed through the normal channels. Disputes with an administrator should be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels of third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration. Mild or one-time only incivility should instead be reported to Wikiquette Alerts. If the administrator is listed at Administrators open to recall and you believe the conditions listed there have been met, they should be reported there.

Under "Before nomination":

Consider that nominations that do not address the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the account to have the sysop right will likely fail, and possibly backfire spectacularly. Determining that is the purpose of this process. If this is not the issue in your case then you are in the wrong place. In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable pattern of repeated unacceptable behaviors, not just a single incident. Processes like this one usually result in intense scrutiny of all involved parties. The bright light you are about to shine on a particular administrator will reflect on you as well.

Tighten wording regarding prior discussion with administrator

I regard the following as a friendly amendment to the above:

"Disputes with an administrator should must be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels of such as third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration."

Tighten wording regarding multiple resubmissions

I would like to see wording at the end of the notice along the lines of:

Repeated resubmissions of failed RfDA's may result in measures taken to protect the project from repeated frivolous submissions that may include, but are not limited to, suspension of editing privileges.

Wording, of course, is open to suggestion.

All done. Will ask Avi (talk · contribs) about positioning of final one. Ben MacDui 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for speedy close

Suggestion to spell this out.

Certification vs Quorum

Discussion about the conflict between nominations and WP:CANVASS.

On re-reading I don't think this requires any action. Ben MacDui 16:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Before a CDA nomination

Suggestion and general agreement that wording be tightened: "A CDA request may be initiated only after substantial community discussion at a suitable venue, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User, has failed to produce a resolution."

Proactively scheduled review

...after say 5 CDAs. Done, although I made up the wording. Ben MacDui 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"All editors"

Not clear to me what this was intended to amend. Perhaps a default statement about using standard RfA procedures needed? Ben MacDui 11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Small changes added. Ben MacDui 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Language request

OK, this is probably slightly off topic, for which I apologize, but I have a heartfelt request to make of all "listeners" here. Could people please refreain from referring to this as "deadminship"? Using "de-adminship" shouldn't really be that difficult, and it avoids the issue that "deadminship" often reads as something like "dead man ship". Thank you for your understanding.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite agree myself. Ben MacDui 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to CdA's Introduction

Matt, I have reverted this. I know you don't like the idea that the process was intentionally structured as a reverse RfA, but it was and it is clear that this remains part of its appeal. I strongly suggest discussing proposed changes first. It is going to take me several days to examine all the changes you made to the FAQ and at this late stage some kind of stability in the process would be helpful, to me at least. Ben MacDui 09:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that 'voter appeal' is really relevant, especially now that we have put so many extra 'safeguards' into the process, that we cannot fairly call this a "reverse (or mirror) RfA" without providing a serious qualifier (and that is all I added! I didn't take it away.) Aside from the now 8 safeguards, to suggest that 70% has the same 'value' to both RfA and CdA is just plain wrong. RfA is (broadly speaking) a positive, open and optimistic matter, CdA is a negative, damning and (in reality) a very precise one. We could have a CdA made every day if people thought it was just an opportunity for de-election (ie a mirror RfA). Look at those 8 stages of safeguards we have now.

I think the always-ambiguous nature of the original CDA proposal is starting to become a really serious matter now we have made all the adjustments, and the final RFC is looming. The questions have to be asked: Is CDA a simply community de-election matter? Or is at more of an Emergency de-sysop? The honest truth (in my eyes) is that it is something in the middle, and we must reflect that in the text. We also have to pave the way for the likely change in the baseline percentage too: it is likely to come down from 70% after the finalisation poll, although to what degree is still being ironed out of course.

I also changed the text to be more readable. I cannot easily grasp the meaning of the existing intro, and intros are supposed to be readable.

What is the following (current intro) actually saying?

"What the process is

This process is for removal of the sysop right from an account of a currently active administrator account, per the consensus of the Wikipedia editor community at large. Each request is formatted as a nomination, with accompanying outcome poll and discussion page, one per request per account that is to have the right removed.

This process is intentionally structured as a mirror image of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, about which you can read more at the Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. That is also the process to use in order to re-gain the sysop right after it is removed by community consensus."

The first line together with the "mirror RfA" line is simply makes CdA look like an easy de-elction matter to me. And what does "one per request per account that is to have the right removed" mean? I assume it means 'only one CDA per admin'. Whatever we say about the "mirror RfA" the intro needs some re-writing.

My proposed change:

"The Community de-Adminship (CdA) process is for the community to request the removal of administrator status (known as the 'sysop right') from a currently active administrator account. Each CdA request is formatted as a nomination (by 10 editors in good standing), followed by an accompanying outcome poll (which must contain 50 votes in support of the CdA, totalling a discretionary 70% of the total vote), which will lead directly to discussion on the case's talk page. The decision to de-sysop will be based on whether there is a clear consensus to do so.

With important differences, CdA can be seen as a reverse process of Request for Adminship (WP:RfA). RfA is also the process to use in order to re-gain the sysop right after it is removed by community consensus."

The above re-write is an attempt to clearly explain CdA, and leave no ambiguity. The existing line, "This process is intentionally structured as a mirror RfA", aside from seriously needing a qualifier, is simply too past-tense. Things have changed to such a degree now, that we need to start dealing with this type of text, and people have got to have reasonable time to see it too. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - I have added in a version of the above namely "The Community de-Adminship (CDA) process is for the community to request the removal of administrator status (known as the 'sysop right') from a currently active administrator account. Each CDA request is formatted as a nomination (by 10 editors in good standing), followed by an accompanying outcome poll, which must contain at least 50 votes in support of the CDA. The decision to de-sysop will be based on whether there is a clear consensus to do so." and adding in a qualifying phrase about mirror images. It's "CDA" everywhere else, so let's be consistent. Ben MacDui 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have two issues:

• 1) the statement 'currently active administrator account'. Should we remove that? The section titled 'What this process is not' already suffices in addressing this in my opinion. Otherwise I foresee arguments about what constitutes 'a currently active admin', and in all reality no one will accept a request to de-admin someone who hasn't recently been active enough to do something wrong.
• 2) is the slightly detailed second paragraph on RFA even necessary? We're trying to be concise in explaining CDA, not RFA. There's a section in the guide already on related processes, where RFA is listed. Further RFA is rightfully discussed in the 'Appeals' sub-section, thus it seems to be potentially confusing fluff as is. NJA (t/c) 08:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with losing "currently active", and any text that is ambiguous. Arbs and crats don't have to pre-qualify everything they might do - simplicity where there is doubt is the way I think (as long as the 'simplicity' has no ambiguity). I've always wanted to underplay the link to RfA (to me it is meaningless beyond the initial mention), but to some people CDA is genuinely a 'mirror process' of RfA, and for them that fact is a fundamental part of it's being. The intro used to stress this, but now we have a 65% baseline (and not 70% like RfA), this is easier to change. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-poll diff

• This is a 'diff' of Guide page before Jan 9th 2010 (the date the changes suggested in the 'revision polls' began to be made).

Tidy and significant safeguard changes

I made a number of changes in one go. Most were cosmetic, but two were very important.

1) I removed all reference to "of good standing" regarding the 10 editors, per the emerging draft page talk consensus.

2) I added this parag per NewYorkBrad's (and others) concerns:

"An Arbitration member or Bureaucrat may withdraw the validity of an editor, or editors, who are considered to be potentially unreliable nominees. This is generally done in extreme cases only, and usually when the nomination has been submitted. One full day is to be allowed for any replacement nominee(s) to be found."

I actually don't mind if little like this is there at all, but I put it in to work on.

Regarding the new section formatting - it is largely for the RfC. The section headings (ie the '='s) can be reduced if need be, if the CDA proposal gets through. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes- I undid all that as I neither support the changes nor could make any clear sense of the diff. Better to suggest changes first and avoid these large diffs. Ben MacDui 09:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As you also undid an hour of someone else's work this morning, I'm going to put it back. It was just too difficult to clean it up an then make the c/e changes. Sorry, you'll have to read through it - but it's actually worth looking at it with a slighly fresh eyes. If it helps; this is my diff again is here, and this is the diff of NJA's edit after mine here. NJA seems to be a lawyer (which could have obvious uses here) and an admin, and I'm happy he wanted to work on the changes I made last night. The combined edits represent a few hours work, and I think the result is a much better edit to work from than the previous harder-to-follow edit. I actually think NJAs copy edits improve the language significantly. It is at a stage now where we can really just focus on the outstanding details, imo.Matt Lewis (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is nuts. We now have three different editors adding new material. The process has become all but incomprehensible. If you want to make changes of significance you should be proposing them and adding them in piece meal not as a huge diff. End of story. Ben MacDui 10:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA always was a little bit nuts! (since I've been watching it anyway). 3 editors working together is not untypical in 'article space' - I suppose we need to see it as similar to general editing this point. I think it was heading for a period like this, as it needed a good tidy as well as the various detail changes. Getting things in is often a jolt. The 'catch 22' for me was that I would have had to make about 5 proposals to lay up acheiving what I wanted. Of course, I'll accept any detail/copy changes you want to make. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure seems to me, as it has for some time now, that Matt's agenda for Cda has grown increasingly unilateral and disruptive. The entire Cda process is in danger of collapse, in my view. Jusdafax 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make these childish comments on my talk page. I'm growing tired of them now. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to comment that I at least largely agree with Jusdafax about that, and I say that with sorrow. There have actually been some edits that were helpful, but I've just had to expend an excessive amount of time undoing a lot of damage. But the solution to bad editing, is good editing. There is no reason to conclude that anything is collapsing. The sky has not fallen, nor will it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Tryptofish, but what "damage" exactly? You like to stand in the middle in these matters I know, but I'm not here to do any damage, and nor do I. I'm not a punch bag either. I've been a copy editor by trade - please show me my bad editing. Regarding the parts you disagree with - just deal with them. You have actually made a large amount of copy edits of your own now. I think I deserve a little more common respect. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of my copy edits had to undo the damage of your copy edits. And copy edits are one thing, but making major changes to the meaning on the whim of the moment, in the face of a couple of months of consensus to the contrary, is far from copy-editing. I stand by what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought you said "largely disagree" - but "largely agree" with what Judafax just said?!? I'm really not happy with that at all, and I'd like you to take it back. I can see now all your edits today really have been very much WP:OWN. You clearly don't want the text you are happy rolling with changed, but you should have respected the work of others. What is the sense in alienating people by reverting so much work unnecessarily? There was never any "consensus" on the text - you have just assumed that there is because nobody apart from you up until now has fiddled with it. It had to have those various copy and content changes made. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement on blocked users

Under the discussion sub-section, the paragraph titled 'Anyone can participate in discussion', a proviso is made that blocked editors can comment if the CDA is about their block. This is obviously a good thing, however it should not mean that they are allowed to evade the block to do so. Something needs added or clarified there, no? NJA (t/c) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Secondly, it's said that nominees must personally sign, but we allow for block users to discuss. Therefore shouldn't a proviso be added that uninvolved admins or crats may sign on the behalf of a blocked user where the CGDA is relevant to their block (and of course they meet the same 3 months, 500 edit threshold). NJA (t/c) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the relevant blocked user detail into the Nomination section, and added the various proviso's there. And I've pointed the detail on blocked users (etc) in the section below to point to it. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy closures

There's a section on speedy closures, and then there's two sentences (at the end) of the 'before nomination' section. The former section says any uninvolved admin or crat can close, whilst the latter two sentences are un-clear who closes. Can we get some clarification and possibly merge these into one clear statement? Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Speedy closure is better in its own section. It will need clarifying though, if it's not made good already. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for undoing a lot of what you did here but as they all came after a large and un-discussed change it was going to be very difficult to sort out which changes applied to the previous version and which were changes to the changes. I will have a look at them as soon as I can and see what I think can be usefully put back. I'll also take a look at the questions you raise. Ben MacDui 09:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a big change before I edited. I re-added a few of my clarifications, leaving out the other contested changes. NJA (t/c) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - thanks. It is not that you need "permission" to make changes as that very shortly prior to an RfC it is pretty crazy for a previously fairly stable page to undergo large and undiscussed changes. Ben MacDui 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No -there was nothing crazy about my edit, and I've discussed the major changes here and on the draft page too. I've worked a lot on this matter now, so please show some respect here! With respect to you both, you have to take the time and look at the page afresh - too much work has gone into this now. Huge reverts are not helpful unless there is a specific detail-based reason. I reverted back to NJAs additions and ce's to my edit of last night. It really is easier to work from now, and I think NJA proved this, as he's been the first 'ouside' editor to tackle this page. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well to be fair I didn't take notice of the large changes. I just finally got around to reading through it and I felt the wording (as I read it) had a lot to be desired. My main concerns are addressed here, ie two issues with the intro, the speedy close statements, and this sub-section on the confusion regarding blocked users. NJA (t/c) 10:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge reverts are I'm afraid the consequence of huge and undiscussed changes. I am sorry this has become so difficult but it is not just that I have not read the big change you made - its that it includes significant changes that have not been agreed. If you spell them out clearly I'd be happy to discuss them. NJA - I am truly sorry you have wandered into this morass - I certainly appreciate your efforts, but without a stable platform from which to discuss changes the process has just become circular. I'm glad you think the major points you have raised are still easy to see. Ben MacDui 10:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Losing the "in good standing" proviso (which appeared throughout) seemed to become consensus in the draft page talk - nobody was fixed on keeping it, and we all could see problems with it. Regarding my parag that addressed NewYorkBrad's concerns (which I copied here in the section above) - I felt the only way to highlight it (and effectively get it in) was amongst a general tidy up. I've always had the strong impression that people haven't been properly reading through the actual CDA proposal (or even reading it at all). I admit that I'd only been scanning it periodically myself, as it just didn't easily flow. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree with MacDui here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Stale signatures

RE: "When a nomination is made by 10 editors, those editors:

• must all have signed the nomination personally, within the 7 day period. 'Stale' signatures are invalid, and must be re-signed to be made valid."

<-- Stale? Either they were signed by editors with 3 months and 500 edits standing within 7 days, or they were not. Either remove, or please clarify what this means and when it would apply? Thanks (NJA) -->

Yes, what makes the signatures stale? Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As answered also at my talk: they become "stale" after 7 days. There are 7 days to collect the signatures for nomination, and after that, one has to sign again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see an answer on your Talk. Why would someone sign again? Do you mean all the first lot of 'nomination' votes are put aside, and there is a second phase of voting, which can be added, removed or changed during the discussion phase? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-worded it. This really isn't so difficult. You can't have a failed nomination sitting around for months waiting for a tenth editor to finally show up, if the first nine editors have lost interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Active and inactive admin: is CDA for both, just active ones, or should it leave it open?

I've removed all references to both the activity and inactivity of admin, to leave things more flexible, and avoid people raising the question "what is active"? I think around 800 admin are classed as 'inactive' (by someone's criteria), and I think it is simply best not to go into it at CDA. It is highly unlikely that 10 editors will open a CDA on a truly inactive admin, and if that actually happened, it would likely be a serious matter of 'discovered' CDA-worthy behaviour in an inactive admin, from someone who could theoretically re-appear at any time. But rather than change to "all administrators (whether active or not)", I think we should just say "administrators" let the matter play out. Regarding the 'inactivity' paragraph in "What the Process is not", I don't think anyone is really likely to confuse CDA with the matter of culling long-gone admin, and detailing it just raising difficult (and unnecessary) questions on what is active and what isn't. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The language appears to have been restored, quite appropriately. There is no consensus to remove the sysop right from inactive accounts and CDA should not be an end run around this general principle. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher. Such a change has never been discussed, and there is no reason to make it unilaterally. In fact, there is no reason to make it at all: the existing language creates no problems, and is just common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really both think that 10 editors will try and get together to use CDA to clear up inactive admin? If they have found a valid reason to start a CDA, they would have to have massive proof of consistent wrongdoing, so they may as well have a go. And where is this 'consensus' anyway? I challenge it. What the 'inactive admin' paragraph actually does is raise doubts on what an 'active' admin actually is. Why have that ambiguity when it is not needed? The parag is full of irrelevant stuff on consensus too, and is part of the remaining cruft that takes the shine off CDA as a serious stand-alone proposal imo. All the unnecessary third-level (in one day) reverts and rewriting now is doing, is making the thing more verbose and less fluent. Why? We have to try not to grind each other down. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

After the most recent edits

After the rather too-hectic round of recent edits, I think it has come back to something pretty close to what the community has been telling us they want. There is, however, one section where things are not entirely clear to me yet. Recently, Newyorkbrad raised some concerns that the previous "editor in good standing" language would present problems to ArbCom: persons who had perhaps very mild or unrelated sanctions, perhaps long ago, asking to have their "good standing" restored. The "good standing" language has now been clarified, and I think has consensus in the present form (?). However, other language was added as well as deleted, and I think some confusion remains. It is in the section about the nominators.

• You will see a bullet point that I added back, after it had been deleted, that says "needs to be discussed" at the end. I propose that it be retained. There was no need to delete it, and it clearly reflects the wishes of the editors who have been commenting all along.

• There is also a newly-added passage called "The following terms and restrictions also apply:" with three bullet points of its own. I propose that it be deleted. It is partly redundant, and partly a solution in search of a problem.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The first bullet was in place of the sanctions (etc) detail, which is widely worried about, and could ruin the proposal. I suggest we discuss it without it in, as nobody heas really objected to its removal. The second bullet solved an ambiguity, the third bullet was initially just text (which is now duplicated). I don't understand how you can just assume the 'community' is behind the all existing wording-- most people couldn't even read it - and that's an absolute fact. It HAS to be readable. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work - things are not quite as chaotic as I feared. A few points:

First mention of "Stewards" could do with a link.

Before nomination: "note of Dispute resolution" - I don't think this needs a capital 'D'.

"may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions" - "needs to be discussed". I agree it should be retained and I have a caveat. This is not an issue in which (to the best of my knowledge) any of those who have been consistently active have much expertise. Even if I don't agree with them, when folks like NYbrad and Elonka turn up suggesting issues relating to this statement be cleared up I sense a need for caution, yet attempting to become proficient in this complex area of Wikipedia is not practical in the short term. How about this as an alternative?

The RfC states at the end that "If the RfC ends in consensus to implement, such implementation will then be subject to review by the Bureaucrats". It would be possible to add a short Q in the FAQ asking why this is necessary along with an answer that this in particular is an area where we might specifically ask the 'crats to discuss and if necessary amend the wording.

"The following terms and restrictions also apply:" I have not found the thread or logic behind the inclusion (which may be lack of diligence on my part), but I agree that it serves no genuine purpose and is bordering on instruction creep. Ben MacDui 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See my above comment. And please AGF in the sense of reading the changes thoughtfully. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I do assume GF. You have worked hard on this proposal and I admire your diligence. If you make points worth considering everyone will listen. If you repeatedly make changes without any serious attempt to discuss them it puts people off. As I said above I don't see the need for these three bullet points but if you can muster a cogent argument for them I will be happy to read it. Ben MacDui 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given an argument above and elsewhere. One bullet was exisiting text (which I've just removed the duplication of again), one bullet was an alternative to the sanctions stuff which is so problematic, that it should be discussed while it is temporarily removed from the proposal (which is the sensible way to do it I think), one bullet is information on a blocked editors, in the place people would actually expect it to be (instead of in brackets in the section below).

I know you didn't like the fact that I made the my changes in one edit, but it meant that I made changes that worked across the article. Tryptofish has fixated on the old version, and made 20 changes one after the other. He has made a couple of errors really, which I don't think is fair as much as anything. The old edit very was hard to read, and no way sacrosanct. We have to give each other some space. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I am one of those persons who are put off. MacDui, I've made the link to Stewards (and Jimbo); please check if that was the same as what you intended. About that capital D, I could go either way, and it's no big deal. It refers to a section heading above it. Maybe quotation marks and lower case would be better? And about the "terms and restrictions", yes, let's delete it unless a cogent argument for it comes up. And as for the sort of complicated rewrite of the related paragraph, I'm leaning towards thinking that we are over-thinking it. Maybe we should just go forward with the present language for that paragraph, and treat it as something that will be refined after implementation. I don't see it as something that will make people vote "no". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are cheesed off? You have run rough shod the past few hours. You might not have liked what you saw, but I wish you could see that you can't just methodically revert. We have to be gentler with each other. We disagree on a number of points. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you are now in violation of 3RR. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the version that shows both sets of language, with both labeled as needing to be discussed, before Matt edit warred it to his preferred version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to this reversion, I object because Matt has unilaterally changed it to his preferred language, which, at this point in this talk, appears to be favored only by him, against a large number of editors who have agreed to the earlier wording. I favored leaving both sets of language, indicating the areas of disagreement, and discussing it to decide which to use. You can still see both in the link just above. And about this reversion, my reasoning is it is easier for the reader to not have to search for another section to find out what is being said. And, again, it was the existing language. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your language betrays you in your comments above (before you think a little bit and edit it). I simply don't want to edit in this playground. I didn't notice I hit 3RR, but seeing as you've put it like that Tryptofish - I actually won't do anything. I don't think you've behaved very well today at all. You've made a battle out of far more than you have a right to. And for what? Where is this existing consensus for the format of the page? You could see the time people had spent last night and today finally updating this, and you are squbbling over almost nothing. It is very close to WP:OWN, as you feared yourself on your talk page. By all means report me - a block would at least get me out of this utter foolishness. I do want to help see this bouncy rail cart through to a professional CDA proposal, but I don't want to have to deal with all this nonsense. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am giving myself the same advice I so often have had to give you: to drop it. Other editors can look at this and decide what the best wording would be. And, no, I don't intend to report you. If I did, I would have said it on your talk page, not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good man, it's been good advice. I'm having a break right now too. It can't be too far off now, despite these disagreements. My main worry is 80%. I'll go with 80 if I have to (as I personally don't mind it), but I've just got a horrible feeling we'll regret it on the day. We need more arb type input regarding the sanction stuff. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. Please understand that what I am very concerned about (and I infer that Ben MacDui and Jusdafax are too) is that we have had a document here that a very large number of editors have (hopefully) looked at in the course of some very lengthy and thorough polling and discussion, and that the last 24 hours or so have been marked by a large number of edits by you and by NJA that changed the content a lot from what had been a hard-won consensus, and did so without really justifying it to the rest of us. NJA and I have talked at my talk page, and I tentatively am hopeful that we are now in agreement on all of the questioned points. Some of the changes you made have been helpful, including some clarifications of wording and the creation of sections. However, I'm trying to run interference between those of you who want to spend a lot more time revising, and others who very understandably are beyond-impatient to get things going at last. It seems to me that we are within a day or two of being ready to go live, but the recent edits have too often seemed unneeded, and seem to set us back from being able to move forward. I've spent much of my day today trying to make sure the page remains what editors have said they want. It wasn't that I wanted to undo you. It was that I wanted, and want, to preserve what so many editors have vetted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "have (hopefully) looked at" are the key words here. You say a "very large number of people", but I honestly don't think all that many people have had much more than a quick run through it, and many haven't read it at all. Firstly, the various CDA pages were for a long time very hard to navigate (I myself could not find the proposal for ages). They are not exactly seamless now, but there is little more we can do to rectify that. Secondly, the proposal simply wasn't an inviting read (again I'm using myself as a benchmark). Thirdly, people keep either owning up to the fact that they haven't read it, or that fact becomes clear in their comments. One person told me they would vote for any form of CDA, so wasn't concerned about the actual details. Others have postponed it, like NJA who finally read it today.

So I really believe that the majority of people (outside of the really committed) haven't fully read all the details, and most of those who have, will have assumed it is to be tidied up, revised and re-written, partly because of the way it was written. I just can't imagine that there is any consensus at all for it being an actual 'text'. Some of the points in it may represent consensus (like points previously polled, though I do contest some points really represent the community, like the 'inactive admin' matter - and some of those polls have been seriously disputed in terms of representing consensus) – but much of the general content I really do not think represents anything.

I just wish we went through all this stuff at some less nerve-wracking point in the past, instead of right before the inevitable 'zero hour'. But when could we have done it? For me the whole January deadline thing was a really bad idea. By Jan 10th we were only half way up the mountain, if even that. 5.4 came from a self-weakening spread of polls, and was unclear on a major point. It was no wonder so many people were taking the mick out of 'us' - we were seriously running ahead of ourselves, and it was very much them/us thereafter. These things are simply done when they are done. We can't do a non-proposal RfC now (for obvious reasons – though it seems to be what Jehochman wants), but tomorrow I'm going on a personal fact finding mission to see what some of the more vocal critics actually want at this point in time. I just want comments which are honest and/or productive, and not semi-cryptic comments, which are mainly taking the piss out of (or plain ignoring) us.

PS. Unfortunately MacDui reverted that last edit. I expect it was to his favoured edit (though he seemed to have stepped back), but I think even this is problematic, because we are essentially a small crowd offering support within ourselves, and consequently pissing each other off. I did hope someone new and less jaded would come in and edit next, whatever that edit was. We desperately need more people imo, and I hope NJA still sticks around. The hard-to-avoid tl;dr aspect is another reason perhaps - has everyone even got to it? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point the issues under debate are only those marked "need to be discussed" although in some cases I am not at all sure why. Perhaps this could be spelled out. Let us hope that these can be dealt with in a collaborative spirit. Ben MacDui 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! From my perspective, the issues are what I said at the very top of this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are using that 'template', I'm going to add it to 80% as my last edit tonight. Whatever happens, it certainly can't be ignored. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed both of the above two remaining issues named by Tryptofish. We are agreed about the 3 bullet points, I don't see a specific reply or alternative suggestion re the single bullet point issue. I see no need to continue to discuss the others. There is imply no purpose in trying to second guess these issues when the question we are asking is about the overall principle. No matter what is said someone will disagree with the specifics. I do not believe that it is our role to start including new issues or debate old ones that were not raised during the extensive earlier discussions. They are simply debating points that both common sense by Bureaucrats and actual experience will iron out. Ben MacDui 09:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Two people shouldn't decide what is and what is not a current issue. While I do not agree with Mr Lewis on some things (as noted here), I do think that aversion to clarifications by citing a consensus of 1-2 weeks ago is insufficient. To be clear, I think there are only just a handful of ambiguities left in the current version. I've worked on new and established policy guidance before, and these ambiguities are things that should be addressed, and they could easily be fixed now without too much discussion as generally it's contradictions and clarifications to be made. Anyhow, as noted in the section directly below I have two issues with the nominator's sub-section, one in the related processes section, two in the the before nominations section, also a concern about the wording of allowing blocked editors into discussion, and possibly some rewording of the community restrictions bit (though not terribly important). I'd like to be WP:BOLD and use common sense to clarify them, though I'm not up for having clarifications undone again just because 2 weeks ago it looked okay. What makes sense to those who've been working on it for weeks, does not necessarily make sense to everyone else. NJA (t/c) 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. After sleeping on this, I've gone over all the comments since I was here last, and I'm going to offer, here and below, my best thoughts on it as of now. On the specific question I raised at the top of this talk thread, I see it the same way that Ben MacDui does in his most recent comment above. I agree with that entirely. I've also read carefully all of NJA's comments here and on my own talk, and I want to say very sincerely that they are frequently eye-opening for me, in that they often rightly point out things to which my own eyes had simply glazed over and could no longer see. NJA has done us all a very great service in this regard and I, for one, am grateful. I acknowledge that Matt may also have been trying to draw attention to some of the same things, but I somehow understand it from the way NJA communicated it, whereas I didn't "get it" from Matt. I'll make separate comments below about the issues NJA raises below.

Let me draw attention, particularly MacDui's, to what's smoldering near the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC: my somewhat derailed attempt to get a good plan on announcing the RfC on watchlists whenever it does open, and the sometimes trollish, sometimes valid discussion about how to format the RfC page. I'm not advocating wading into the distracting nastiness, but I do think we need to make sure we are all on the same page about what we will actually put forth. I remain hopeful that we can work through all the various issues within a few days, and still go live pretty soon.

Now let me return to the specific issue being discussed here. I note NJA made this edit. I don't see it discussed below, and I remain concerned, as I indicated at my talk yesterday, that it goes against discussion here. Where NJA says just above that two people (MacDui and I) shouldn't decide, well, OK, but neither should NJA and Matt, and the fact remains that there were quite a few editors who looked carefully at it in the talk I just linked. My concern here is that we may be undoing a consensus wording to satisfy just NJA, and I do not really understand why. Please explain, specifically, what problem(s) the newer language is trying to fix, because I just do not see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of the serious concerns noted below, this is the big deal? Okay cool. But it does appear that any change of the text is being heavily resisted, which just isn't what this is all about. All I was trying to do is add clarity and remove odd language not commonly used in policy guidance or by other english speakers.

First sentence: it's the process that is addressing the issue of trust, not the nomination itself. The nomination is simply part of that process. As for the second sentence, I believed administrator sounds better as that's what being questioned, but I suppose the generic term account is okay, though less precise. Next we have the "possibly backfire spectacularly bit", which is very poor wording for policy guidance, as we don't know if that is true, but we do know if the core issue isn't addressed then it will fail (which is what the revised wording says). The third sentence was just filler, as it's already been made clear that if the core issue isn't addressed the process fails (ergo its purpose has failed). So why mention it, particularly mid-way through the paragraph? Moving along, I suppose the words 'pattern' and 'history' are interchangeable, but I think history captures the fact that it's been repeat (ie there's a history of it), thus it just makes the wording cleaner. The (s) after behaviour is obvious. The last bit: I think it's also clearer, and the wording 'bright light you are about to shine' sounds very regional. This is en-wiki, so let's get to the point of the sentence without odd language, ie your conduct will be considered too.

Saying all this, if it's a concern then we can discuss it, but regionalisms and telling people outcomes will backfire spectacularly and such is not policy guidance language. NJA (t/c) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I appreciate the prompt reply. Actually, amid all the prompt replying, you have probably by now seen that I did reply also below. (I'm typing as fast as I can, really! (smile)) Anyway, this is now the first time that I could understand your thinking. Some of the minor copyedit things, such as pattern/history, are, well, minor, so we can certainly just agree about that. On what I see as the more substantive parts, the passages that sound to you colloquial or predictive, we disagree. I guess you seem to see it from the perspective of writing law, whereas I see it from the perspective of telling fellow editors, some of whom may come to the eventual CDA page in anger and in haste, to understand what they should not be getting into. It's the way I think we communicate on-Wiki. These are not things that would (I think?) become the basis for a Wikilawyering complaint, so it's not a matter of making them airtight as policy. Rather, it's a way of grabbing an angry editor by the collar and saying wait a minute. I don't suppose m:DICK would pass muster with your analysis either, but this is the right way to say it, I think, as did others here. Let's see what others think now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The language is very odd to me (I've done other policy work on wiki), and it isn't common terminology I'd use. I try to keep the law out of things, but as a younger lawyer in the UK we are trained to use unambigious language, and to make things as clear as possible, particularly when dealing with international speakers of English. Anyhow, let's point out the differences and see what people think. NJA (t/c) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. (Young, a lawyer, and in the UK: I'm zero for three with those!) I'll try to make the agreed-upon changes described in the sections below. (I looked back at your user-draft, and noted that you seem to think I or others were pushing back against changing the in-good-standing language. Actually no, I was the one who asked Brad about it to begin with, and I made some of the changes myself.) Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So, for those without a scorecard, here are, as of the present, the two alternative wordings under consideration. NJA's wording, currently on the page, is:

Note that the purpose of this process is to address the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the administrator to have the sysop right. Nominations that do not address that issue will likely fail. If this is not the issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place. In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable history of unacceptable behavior(s), and not just one single incident. This process will result in intense scrutiny of all involved parties, thus realize that your conduct may be questioned as well.

The wording that I favor, based on the discussion here, but modified now by me to account for some of the simple copyedit type issues about which NJA and I agree is:

Note that nominations that do not focus on the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the administrator to have the sysop right will likely fail, and possibly backfire spectacularly. If this is not the issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place. In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable history of repeated unacceptable behavior, and not just one single incident. Processes like this one usually result in intense scrutiny of all involved parties. The bright light you are about to shine on a particular administrator will reflect on you as well.

What do other editors, with fresh eyes, think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not a fresh face, but I have a strong point. I think CDA could be really hard-won at the RFC, and that it has to be as professional-looking and watertight a proposal as possible to get through. People might want to put in colloquial language if it gets through, but that is whenever. I suggest sticking with the professional copy throughout the text, and use bullets/sub-sections etc where they clearly help (which is most places). Put the right points in the right sections (not in brackets where people wouldn't expect them!!). Make the page readable, clear, and as professional looking as possible. If it looks like it is already policy, it could be half way there. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued wording concerns

Key

Red - Needs simple clarification, likely without much discussion to remedy. I couldn't support unless clarified.

Orange - Ambiguous and in need of clarification, possibly some discussion needed to remedy. Unlikely to support unless clarified.

Purple - Seems to be completely redundant, or it could be tied into other existing bits of the guidance to avoid confusion. An easy fix, though not serious enough for me to resist the draft if not fixed.

Green - Could use some thought on whether the current wording is clear enough. Not enough of a concern for me to resist the policy.

I've re-read the entire wording as of 8.00 UTC, and here's what I think:

• Nominator's sub-section:

•  Done "their account must be "more than three months old" - does this mean at least three months old (i.e. 90 days) or (91+ days)? I know to those who drafted this it's clear, but not to me.
• the stale signatures bit - Whilst it's been revised since yesterday, I'm still confused about it. My understanding was that if they don't get 10 sigs by 10 qualified editors within 7 days then it's dead in the water. Thus why this extra language about re-signing? Shouldn't they simply to do the nomination all over again should they find the one or two editors they needed, whether it's a few days or few weeks later? If not, then it should be clarified, as again, this is not currently straight forward except maybe to those who drafted the provision.

•  Done the related processes section - I slightly see a reason to list RFA (even though I think it's redundant here as it's linked to and mentioned twice, i.e. once in 'what this process is' and also 'appeal'). However what does bot right approvals have to do with anything? I'd personally remove the section.

• the 'before nominations section':

• 1st para: It says in the last sentence of the 1st paragrapgh that 'you should attempt persuasion', however it's said in this section under the heading "Dispute resolution or other discussions" that substantial DR must have taken place. Thus the statements do not match up. I'd remove the persuasion bit and make clear that other DR processes must have taken place. It's completely confusing and slightly contradicting as is.
• Last para: The last two sentences about speedy closes: who does it? How does this bit on speedy closes tie in with this section dedicated to speedy closure?

• the "Nominators Not subject to ArbCom or other restrictions" provision - I think it could be revised. While, we shouldn't step on Arb's toes (thus leave that bit as is), for community restrictions we should allow people to go ahead, since it's the community placed and oversees these restrictions. If a statement is made in the nomination or poll by an uninvolved admin or crat that the editor is under such restrictions, then it's up to the community at large to weigh the evidence. We shouldn't make this a closed process.
• the provisions on Blocked editors

• In reference to them as nominators: I'm glad the current wording is clearer than yesterday, as it sounded as if blocked editors should somehow evade their blocks. We may wish to clarify that they may be unblocked at uninvolved admin discretion to take part in discussion. I'm unsure if limiting their participation to the talk page of CDA only is fair or needed.
•  Done Allowed to participation in discussion! (under the 'discussion sub-section') -- This is why clarifications are needed. In the sub-section, a provision is made for blocked editors to discuss in the CDA if the admin blocked them or it's related, etc. However it's not clear how this will happen. We don't want blocked editors reading this and then evading their block to discuss, as they'll get in more trouble. Clarity is key, i.e. blocked editors who believed they're affected by the CDA should request an unblock in the usual way making clear they wish to participate in the CDA. That way an admin can unblock with the condition they only discuss in the CDA.

Other thoughts

Editors of good standing

Currently it's been left out of the draft I read, but should there be a push to re-add it, my comments on why it's completely redundant and would only serve to make the process reclusive and ambiguous are noted here. As of now, its inclusion would be a reason for me to reject the policy.

Admins who go on Wiki-break?

Not discussed, but I can foresee it happening -- what about admins who decide to go on wiki-break after they realise it's heading towards a CDA? Essentially it doesn't run foul of the current 'validity' section found in the guidance, but would there be a way to make it clearer, i.e. since it's a community process admins who have decided to take a wiki-break and not offer a statement in their defence do so at their own risk? I'd just hate to see the inevitable passing of a CDA, only to have the admin and his mates claim it was an unfair process as he went on break right before the CDA and wasn't able to make a statement in his own defence. NJA (t/c) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

There's a lot to react to, here. I'll try to address every point, in the same order as above.

(Please sign each point, so we can all contribute to this section!)

• Account more than 3 months: You are absolutely correct. Let's change "more than" to either "at least" or "a minimum of".

'At least' is (to me) the least ambiguous of how long they needed to be registered. NJA (t/c) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stale signatures. This strikes me as something where we could choose between either of two approaches. One would be, as NJA says, to say that, if there are fewer than 10 signatures after 7 days, then the nomination process is aborted, and editors have to start over from scratch if they eventually find the needed 10. However, that is not the only possibility. The other, which is what I think we have been contemplating all along, is that, simply, the nomination cannot be certified to go forward for a community !vote on day 7 if, for example, there are only 9 signatures. Let's say, for example, that on the first of those 7 days of a failed nomination, 2 editors started the process by signing. Then, over the next 6 days, 7 more editors signed, for a total of 9 signatures on day 7, and it does not get certified. Now, let's say the next day (the 8th), a 10th editor arrives and signs. In this case, editors 1 and 2 must refresh their signatures, while editors 3 through 10 already have valid signatures, and the nomination is now valid to be certified. On the other hand, if it takes a month for a 10th editor to show up, then, indeed, all 10 editors have to start over. Is there a problem with that, or with similar scenarios? I don't see it. I don't see why we would have to make that change.

Why even bother with all these scenarios? If they don't meet the requirements by day 7 then it's over and do it again. If this isn't agreed here that's fine, though I'll mention it a the request for comment so we can see what to do with it. NJA (t/c) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bots approval. Not a big deal to me, probably Uncle G was thinking about making people understand his reasoning and we just always left it there, but I'd be perfectly happy to either delete the bots approval line or just delete the section.

 Done (deleted the whole section). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Persuasion before nomination. You are absolutely correct, that was an unrecognized contradiction. I think the easiest way to fix it is to delete "You should" at the beginning of that sentence, and just start it with "Attempt..". Does that work?

Well attempt doesn't mean must, thus if they must use dispute resolution then say so there too. To me, dispute resolution is persuasion in itself. No? NJA (t/c) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done (changed "You should" to "You must"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I still would ask for more clarity if at all possible, e.g. "as noted above in the "Dispute resolution or other discussions" heading, you must have done DR" (or whatever wording that makes the same point). I know it's a bit repetitive, but it would reduce any ambiguity that may exist for readers unfamiliar with the structure of the guidance. NJA (t/c) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Again, absolutely correct. Change "speedily closed" to "speedily closed by an uninvolved Administrator or Bureaucrat."

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearer, but I still wonder about this separate sub-section. Couldn't the paragraph state: "repeated frivolous nominations may be considered disruptive. See this sub-section of the policy guidance for more details". (or something along them lines)? NJA (t/c) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Two points in green color about nominators. I'm not sure what to say. My sense is that the community feels pretty strongly that they want that editors who are "sanctioned" in whatever way should not be in a position to initiate the process against an administrator as "payback". The feedback has been pretty loud and clear about that. Instead, such editors should have to be able to convince 10 "eligible" editors to take up their case, and if they can't, then no CDA. But those editors should be able to !vote and comment, so others can see and evaluate their concerns, and the closing Bureaucrat can decide whether or not to count their !vote. I do not know what to change, and I would agree with MacDui, above, that we should use the earlier wording, unless someone can explain more clearly why we should not.

I was most concerned about community imposed sanctions. If a notification or declaration is made that they're under such restrictions, it should be up to the community to weigh the relevance it bears on the nomination, not a admin or 'crat. Same thing goes for limiting their discussion to the talk page, relevance should be determined by the community as this is a community process and a community imposed restriction, and the decision shouldn't be made by a distinct sub-section of the editing community. This might be something to note in the RFC. NJA (t/c) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• How do blocked editors comment without evading their block? Once again, you are absolutely right, and that went right past us. We need to fix that. Change "(unless blocked by the administrator being reviewed and when the CDA is materially related to that block)" to "(unless blocked by the administrator being reviewed and when the CDA is materially related to that block, in which case an uninvolved administrator, on request, shall unblock the editor for the sole purpose of participation in the CDA)", or maybe a better wording if someone can think of one.

That wording you came up with is pretty spot on. NJA (t/c) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Good standing". Yes, I think we agree that we had better not go back to the earlier flawed wording.
• Wikibreaks. I see the point. There would be nothing wrong with adding wording to clarify that. What would that wording be, and where?

Could be a quick note in the validity sub-section, ie an admin taking a conveniently timed wiki break will not perclude this community based process from taking place. Or something a lot less sarcastic! As you might be able to tell, it's time for me to sign off (getting irritable), but great dialogue. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, maybe, please check what I did [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well actually I think without the addition it was clearer that validity of the nomination wasn't contingent on recognition of receipt by the admin. Maybe the wording could be more direct, in that this is a community process, which only takes place after failed attempts at proper DR, and therefore failed recognition of receipt by the admin (for whatever reason) will not effect the validity of the process. See what I'm getting at, or am I muddling it all up? NJA (t/c) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

About canvassing

I've just now noticed that someone deleted a word from the section on canvassing, and I've added it back. Please note that WP:CANVASS does not allow one to contact other editors to provide specific input, and please note the previous discussion here, where you need to read carefully what it says under oppose and neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting page ready

At this point, it looks to me like Wikipedia:Community de-adminship is a page that is no longer needed for anything, and the Guide page should take its place when the RfC is ready to go live. I also want to note, again, that we need to make sure we have a watchlist page announcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the idea although it may cause inconsistencies elsewhere with the wording and/or links.

With regard to actually completing this process, we don't seem to be making any headway on the "needs to be discussed" front.

For the first "may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement" - I made a suggestion above. Any alternatives?

For the second and third: "Tip for editors who are not eligible to make nominations:" "nominations by editors during an active arbitration process" -what's to discuss?

For the "following terms and restrictions" section - I will need to look into recent history to find out what's going on here but I think this needs to go?

"Anyone may participate in the discussion." What's to discuss? Ben MacDui 12:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/Example#Nomination

In trying to understand want is being discussed what that actual curent propostion is I looked at Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/Example#Nomination and read specifically The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion (link) to refer the de-adminship yet from what I reading this is proposed to be process outside of the Arbitration Committee as such it appears redundent to have an arbcom motion as part of the process, additionally such a motion would have an undue influence on the result.

This page was last edited on the 9th January and the discussion/proposal appears to have moved well past such a position can those driving this process clearly indicate that status of all subpages so as avoid false information being presented as part of the proposal. Gnangarra 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear that up. It's not a mistake, and as far as I know, that example page is current. There are two ways a nomination can be made to CDA: by ten editors from the community, or by ArbCom. Please see: Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#Nomination. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)