Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject
Administrator

(subpages)
General information
Main project page talk
Community de-adminship
WP:CDA draft RfC talk
Draft Guide to De-Adminship talk
Related Pages
Wikipedia:Administrators talk
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard talk
edit · changes

Contents


Quick links[edit]

These links show the present version of the CDA proposal this page is intended to work on.

Please read the sections "Background", "Purpose of this Discussion", and "General Observation" below for an introduction to what is going on.

Background[edit]

This discussion follows on from those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall and the associated talk page. There, a poll was conducted that attempted to evaluate the levels of community support for various proposals seeking to create a method by which the community at large (as opposed to Arbitration Committee) could pass comment on the actions of and if necessary remove the tools from, existing Administrators.

The main conclusions of this poll were as follows:`

  1. The status quo, (i.e. no such process being available) whilst garnering some support, was very unpopular. 77% of respondents did not support its continuation.
  2. Only one proposal achieved a greater degree of support than opposition – "Wikipedia:Community de-adminship" (CDA) – which received a majority of 13, and the support of 65% of those who considered it.
  3. "Make CAT:AOTR mandatory" was remarkably unpopular, with 96% opposed.
  4. Various other proposals received some real support and/or little opposition.

The detailed results are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Results table. (Note that the higher numbered proposals appeared later in the process and were therefore viewed by fewer respondents.)

The reasons for dissatisfaction with the status quo are complex and varied, but a view was regularly expressed that if the community at large has the authority to appoint administrators through the RfA process, then the community should also be able to remove their powers.

Purpose of this discussion[edit]

The aim of this project page and its associated discussion is to refine the existing Wikipedia:Community de-adminship (CDA) proposal, in order to create a formal Request for comment (RfC), in the expectation that this will result in the final version of this proposal being implemented on the English Wikipedia.

Late Comments after Jan 4th

The main discussion was held between 22 November 2009 and 8pm (GMT), on Monday 4th January 2010. A summary of the results follows. A request was made to extend the deadline for further input, and comments are welcome in the #ACTIVE DISCUSSION section below.

  • if sufficient consensus has been reached on the details the RFC will go live as a formal proposal for community consideration, or
  • if further discussion would be useful, it will be extended

'Next Steps' section

A section has been created below at #Completing the CDA revision process for discussion of the revision process, including, if need-be, other suggestions.

Archiving

If it is clear that a strong consensus exists that parts of the discussion (excluding the proposal itself, or the outcome at this point) will be archived from the week beginning 4st December 2009. This does not mean that further comments or opinions cannot be posted, and if necessary the discussion re-activated. The archiving will be undertaken to:

  • save space on this large and complex page and
  • avoid the need for larger numbers of editors to record opinions in cases where the outcome is (apparently) already clear.

Note: Due to various organising, the numbering system of original discussions may have changed.

General observations[edit]

In many cases the discussions are a conflict between:

On the pro-change side:

  • The desire to make the process simpler or easier to implement, in order to prevent Administrators who have seriously abused their position to continue without fear of sanction.
  • The desire to address concerns over the democratic processes on Wikipedia. Concern has been raised over the level of accountability that results from the existing process, where Administrators can be voted in but cannot be voted out. Concerns are often raised by Wikipedians that Administrators can wield powers that Admin were not originally intended to so-often use. It has been argued that greater accountability could bring with it an improvement in care, accuracy and neutrality throughout the project, and lead to less cynicism towards Admin from editors, creating a more trustful editing environment. It has been suggested that the CDA process could be one that brings arbitrators or bureaucrats closer to the editors, and that the outcome of a CDA in certain matters need not always end in the full removal of Administrator status.
  • It has been argued that some Admin could be tempted to resist any change to the existing process, simply because they would be in a less secure position if change comes about, and that concerns of a likely negative outcome are hypothetical, as we haven't tried any new system yet, or 'ironed out' the best one to propose.

On the critical or negative about change side:

  • The desire to avoid a flawed system in which Administrators, who almost inevitably find themselves taking on potentially controversial tasks on the community's behalf, are discouraged from performing their duties correctly (or at all), for fear of reprisals through a 'Recall' method that could be too easily abused by aggrieved editors who aren't getting their way.
  • The desire to avoid a flawed system in which Administrators can protect themselves in an easily 'gameable' process, which would strengthen their position, and could make them immune from further action for a long period.
  • It has been argued that no change is needed, as Wikipedia already has an RFC process that can lead to 'de-sysoping' (removing admin status), and that some people could be supporting change simply so they can 'go after' particular Admin (perhaps to weaken the position the Admin rightly defends), and generally behave in a biased or negative way.

There were originally eight discussion sections on this page, based on the eight major criticisms of the CDA proposal raised during the previous poll. Some of those sections have been archived, other sections were added here at a later date.

The Motion to close[edit]

A "Motion to close" was proposed on 22 December 2009 (UTC).

The result at 4 January 2010 (UTC) was:

Support 22
Oppose 45
Neutral 0

Completing the CDA revision process[edit]

The sections in the To Do list are correspond (though not in order) with the sections at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship (the working CDA proposal). All of them need completing.

Summary of prior discussions and polls[edit]

This is a summary of each of the proposed changes to the CDA proposal. The full polls are archived in archive 1.

Many of these were addressed at the time, with the outstanding ones to be dealt with here.

Please click on [show] to reveal these >
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1. Ten editors to open[edit]

  • Proposal 1.1 Replace "10 editors to open" with "7 editors to open"

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 0
Oppose 17
Neutral 4

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Definition of "editor in good standing"[edit]

See also: section below.

Existing wording: Editors in good standing:

  • may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions, Arbitration Committee restrictions, or Community restrictions, including, but not limited to, topic bans, project bans, and paroles.
  • must be active editors on the English Wikipedia, with accounts more than three months old and with no fewer than 500 edits.

Proposal 2.1 Replace/Add current definition with... "Except where such sanctions were enacted (or were caused to be enacted) by the admin being subject to this process, and the editor is otherwise in good standing".

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 2
Oppose 8
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2 Change second bullet point from 500 edits to 150 edits.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 4
Oppose 12
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2.3 For clarity, proposed wording - "Nomination by the Community at large may be initiated by any registered user, though requires the signed support of no fewer than 9 editors in good standing"

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 0
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Publicity required[edit]

Existing wording:

  • 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.
  • Nominations are not valid unless all of the following apply:

and

  • Discussion and polling proceeds for at least 7 days after discussion opens. Discussion and polling may be summarily closed ahead of that 7 day deadline at the discretion of Bureaucrats and the Arbitration Committee.

Poll finding

  • There were questions about the number of days of prior publicity required and how the information would be publicized to the community.

Proposal 3.1 Change 3 days to 7 days.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 20
Oppose 9
Neutral 4

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3.2 Modify the second bullet point about publicity.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 4
Neutral 0

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


4. A minimum 50 supporters for desysop[edit]

Existing wording

  • No request shall be closed as a de-sysopping if fewer than 50 editors supported the desysopping.
  • Proposal 4.1 Replace current minimum (50) with 100.

Result at time/date of this edit

Support 0
Oppose 10
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


5. Need more concrete percentages for de-sysoping[edit]

Note: Given how central this issue is to the proposal, this section will not be archived until the period for commenting has ended.

Existing wording

  • Bureaucrats are given the same discretion, and determine the community consensus in exactly the same manner, as at Requests for Adminship, with one added restriction. In unclear cases, multiple Bureaucrats may be involved. The added restriction is that no request shall be closed as a de-sysopping if fewer than 50 editors supported the desysopping. (The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large.)

Poll finding Some editors were not clear if this meant that an existing Administrator needed to:

  • receive 70% community support to continue in their role, or
  • receive 70% community opposition to be de-sysopped.

Possible options There are presently four options: 5.1 would require 70% to desysop. 5.2 would require 70% to retain administrator status. 5.3 would require majority sentiment to desysop. 5.4 would require consensus to desysop.

5.1 Add to the current wording:

  • "Thus, for an Administrator to be de-sysopped, a minimum of 50 editors and 70% of those expressing an opinion must support the desysopping."

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 19
Oppose 17
Neutral 0

Details archived per above. 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


5.2 Add to the current wording:

  • "Thus, for an Administrator to be de-sysopped, a minimum of 50 editors must express an opinion, and fewer than 70% of those expressing an opinion must oppose the desysopping."

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 25
Neutral 3

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


5.3 Add to the current wording:

  • "Thus, for an Administrator to be de-sysopped, a minimum of 50 editors and a majority of those expressing an opinion must support the desysopping."

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 6
Oppose 16
Neutral 1 plus two comments

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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."

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 16
Oppose 5
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus discussion of "WARNING NOTE" (parts of which only follow)

Numeric/percentage based systems are game-able/can be gamed/have been gamed in the past.

A numeric-based system for de-adminship, in combination with the current percentage-based requests for adminship opens a potential exploit:

A sufficiently well informed and motivated party (be it for the lulz, or for more serious reasons), would be able to perform a hostile takeover of Wikipedia, at least temporarily. As follows:

  • place a sufficient number of supporters on wikipedia for a long enough period to become established, similar to the methods now used for making stealth-socks (but no actual socking is required)
  • +admin supporters
  • -admin detracting admins
  • one now has sufficient power to subtly alter wikipedia's behaviour as one sees fit.
  • With sufficient admins on attacking side, one could speed up the process, and simply start blocking all detractors outright, wheel-warring as necessary. This would -however- attract a lot of attention to the takeover, and thus might lead to foundation intervention.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This process seems to be showing an inherent bias in administrators supporting their own. Gaming is likely to work in an admins favor. I favor an implementation of nominators restricted to one nominee per month but a 50% threshold for removal subject to bureaucratic discretion. I don't see that proposal anywhere. By the way the CdA process does have the potential benefit of possibly serving as bait to expose user accounts created for sabotaging purposes that currently silently eat away at the project. Lambanog (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Should not have the Bureaucrats involved at all[edit]

Existing wording:
  • Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page.
Poll finding
  • Some repondents felt that this put too much onus on Bureaucrats. Note that input from Bureaucrats is being/has been sought.

Result of discussion at date/time of this edit:

Support 0
Oppose 10
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 09:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

7. Too easy to game the system[edit]

A general comment and specific wordings may not apply. Poll finding: Some editors believed that Administrators would find the system too easy to beat, even if there was widespread opposition to their continuing in the role, while others felt that it would be too easy to bring frivolous charges against good Administrators.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 2
Neutral/Comments 4

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui

8. Possible outcomes short of full desysoping[edit]

Existing wording
  • There are two outcomes. Either the sysop right is to be removed or it is not.
Poll finding
  • Some respondents suggested a wider range of outcomes might be desirable.

8.1 Replace current wording with... An admin may be desysopped indefinitely, and may only regain the flags by making a new Request for Adminship, or for a period to be determined during the process, of not more than one year. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 2
Oppose 11
Neutral 0

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

8.2 Instead, allow for more discussion and not simple bulleted !votes. Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 12
Oppose 0
Neutral 0

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Nominators with conflicts of interests[edit]

Current wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors:...

Proposed wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors: ... should not be nominating in a manner which is or appears to be related to a content dispute. Editors which have had recent or well-known content disputes related to the administrator are strongly encouraged to act as if they are ineligible to nominate.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 0
Oppose 8
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

10. Allow non-eligible nominations but don't count them as such[edit]

Current wording:

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.

Proposed wording:

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. Editors not in good standing or who wish to claim a conflict of interest may nominate, but their nominations will not count toward the minimum. Signatures must be placed in the nomination area of the requests, as a simple signed bullet point. Nominations by editors who have a real or apparent conflict of interest or who are not in good standing must be clearly identified as "ineligible to nominate or conflict of interest" or similar wording.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 2
Oppose 6
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Clarify restoration[edit]

Clarify that ARBCOM and others who sanction can restore rights to nominate

Proposed wording: Current wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors:...

  • may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions, Arbitration Committee restrictions, or Community restrictions, including, but not limited to, topic bans, project bans, and paroles, without the permission of the Arbitration Committee or another person or group empowered to lift those restrictions.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 0
Neutral 5

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

12. Not to be used during arbitration[edit]

Current wording: None.

Proposed wording: This process may not be initiated while the administrator is the subject of an arbitration case concerning the use of his or her administrative tools, or while such a case is pending acceptance by the arbitration committee. If this process is already underway, it is strongly encouraged that anyone considering filing such an arbitration case refrain from doing so until this process is concluded.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 8
Oppose 12
Neutral 1

Details archived per above.

13. Repeat attempts at CDA[edit]

Current wording: none.

Proposed wording: This process may not be restarted against an admin who fails to be de-sysoped by the community for a period of three months. However, Arbcom may recommend a new process within 3 months of a failed de-adminship.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 6
Oppose 11
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

14. Allow Bureaucrats to directly desysop[edit]

Proposals to allow 'crats to desysop users through Special:UserRights have been rejected in the past due to lack of a community desysoping process. If we go forward with this I think that including a request from the community to the devs to allow this would make a lot more sense. If the 'crat is making the decision there isn't really any reason not to allow them to implement it. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Result of discussion at date/time of this edit:

Support 1
Oppose 2
Neutral 4

Details archived per above. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


15A Violation of rules[edit]

Violation of rules result in desysop if admin is stubborn and refuses to admit breaking the rule and does it multiple times Proposal: If an administrator violates a rule, they will be desysoped ONLY if they don't have a reasonable excuse that has widespread support and violates a rule in a way that doesn't actually concretely improves Wikipedia (if they do, they can invoke the IAR (ignore all rules). Such clear rule may eliminate the contentious desysop process. There will be some leniency, such as breaking a rule AND refusal to correct the mistake when notified is permitted a maximum of once every calender year.

Result at time of this edit.

Support 0
Oppose 5
Neutral 0

Details archived per the above. Ben MacDui 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

15. Spell out expectations about canvassing[edit]

15.1 Add the following sentence: "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."

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 6
Oppose 4
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

16. Improve language[edit]

Improve the language about when to use or not to use the process

16.1 In light of discussion that keeps coming up here about concerns that the process can be "gamed", I suggest expanding some passages in the current draft proposal, by adding some text that was well-received in this proposal written by Beeblebrox. The existing text is in regular font, and the suggested additions are in green.

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.

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 11
Oppose 0
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

16.1.5 Prior discussion

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." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 7
Oppose 0
Neutral 2

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

16.1.6 Multiple resubmissions

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. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Result at date/time of this edit:

Support 5
Oppose 0
Neutral 1

Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Late Comments"[edit]

This section has been created to enable those wishing to have input into the process to be able to do so until the revised 18th January closure date as originally outlined above. Further comments on detailed issues were requested for a period of seven days on 15th January - see below.

I notice there is no talk about what effect there may be if a CdA is successful on a new RfA. Presumably if a CdA was successful an RfA would fail but should there be any language on the possibility of an immediate RfA or will it be implicitly understood an RfA can act as an appeal process?
The number of those voting for the 70% threshold who are admins should be noted. I get the feeling many of the tightened restrictions were inputs from admins. Should even these levels be criticized in later discussion it would be useful to note that the concerns of admins were incorporated into the proposal. Lambanog (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the language of the proposal does say that a new RfA is an appropriate recourse for someone removed by a CDA. I think that's good: if the person has turned things around, the community can so determine, but if not, the community will determine that. I don't think we should add any waiting time before an RfA can be attempted, because the system will be self-correcting in that regard. About the second point, yes, it's good to point that out, in terms of assuring the community and partly answering the critics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward![edit]

This is a well-designed proposal that shows high levels of community support. Moving forward to approval and implementation should be undertaken forthwith. — James Kalmar 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January Poll[edit]

Below are active discussions.

Proposed non-binding poll on whether to establish a sub-committee for drafting an FAQ[edit]

Extended content

I see that the excessive bureaucracy on this page continues. If you have something to propose, do it. You don't need to fill in every detail because we have no idea yet whether the broader community supports the general principles, or not. It is silly to waste time debating the fine details when the main idea is untested. Jehochman Brrr 13:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ is a side-issue granted, but things are being sorted in the meantime. Nothing wrong with a work ethic, even if this page has gone a bit long again. If you read #Proposing 'final phase' of this draft RFC you will see we are on the verge of a 'finalisation' poll. How about commenting there? I'm sure it will polled at some point today, using the same advertising tactics as your own "Motion to Close this annoying CDA nonsense early" proposal! Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Please include the entire community in discussions. This page and antecedents are tl;dr. The discussion has turned in upon itself, with a few editors talking to each other in an echo chamber. I feel that the ultimate proposal is going to be something that does not reflect what the community wants. To avoid disappointment, you ought to get broad feedback sooner rather than later. Jehochman Brrr 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That's the million dollar question question isn't it - how to get the 'community' involved. Despite constantly referring to 'the community' I don't think Wikipedia is particularly geared for it. Maybe the page is "too long, didn't read" but that is just the way it's gone. The community that is currently involved are watching in some capacity, and most are waiting it would appear. I'll get as much of community as possible interested in the 'finalisation poll'. As for choosing to go with 5.4 for the final CDA - it was the only proposal that had majority support, so was the obvious starting point. Nobody was likely to oppose that, nor have done. All cross-proposal comments on percentages etc have taken into account. The main thing is that the avenues are being covered, whether by 4 or 5 people, or 40 or 50. One editor actually said he trusts the people involved to iron things out, and anyone can step in of course (and those that have, have mainly said "onward.."). No one can assume anything about people's lack of interaction at times like this; from tacit agreement to standing back, to disinterest to disdain. The main thing is that the outcome is as fair as possible.
So what has emerged from discussion is that we need either to have one final poll here on honing the RfC proposal, or to present a two-phase proposal at RfC. Consensus is for the first option, but it only came after debate. I honestly think the negativity resulting from the Motion for Close is one of the reasons that the 'community' are not exactly bulging through the door: therefore the page has 1) progressed 'bureaucratically' the way it has (to keep the technical work ticking along) and 2) got so long. I've found it hard to get fully enthused about the eventual RfC myself, but the attempt to close early failed, so the broad community certainly will hear all about CDA in the end. Make no mistake - a serious number of people want to see more accountability, whatever transpires with CDA itself. I really hope a decent version of it gets through. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As I say above, I agree that we should do an RfC this month. Unlike Jehochman, however, I believe a 'Reverse RfA' concept is wanted by a majority. How big a majority is the only question left, in my view. Let's do the !vote in a RfC no later than Feb. 1, if not sooner. Best wishes to all, Jusdafax 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Some kind of reverse (or re-) election may indeed be wanted by the public - but I honestly can't see how CDA is it! I think it can seriously mislead people to suggest it too. WP:RfA is an optimistic matter, and 70% is a different thing in that context to the highly negative matter of and admin going so 'bad' that people need to start a CDA.
A true 'reverse (or mirror) RFA' would be for people who are just wary about an admins ability to do the job (with similar reasons to those expressed at RfA) and feel he would best not be one. CDA is the very serious matter of stopping an admin from continuing to damage Wikipedia (there should be nothing speculative about it at all) - and the baseline figure for starting the consensus-based decision is simply not comparable to RfA's current 70% to facilitate creating an admin.
I'm not sure I would vote for a 70% baseline at CDA - it it too easily gamed in my opinion. If 60% was 'gamed' bureaucrats should easily be able to see it. We have to trust Bureaucrats, trust consensus, and trust the community. These are all the ingredients of CDA - if we cannot trust them - then what is the point?
Wikipedians aren't that daft, they don't need CDA to be sold as a mirror of anything. CDA is something that has value entirely in its own right, and shouldn't be linked to RfA, or to other forms of admin recall at all (so changes at those places, for example, are a matter for them). I would feel happiest with a 60% baseline and a nominal 90% desysop threshold. Bureactrats can judge the gaming then, not over-cautious percentages that would lead to a process that given a false sense of accountibility, but actually wouldn't frighten many. CDA should be a deterrent to wayward admin, but at 70% I think the'd feel pretty safe. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't get me wrong. I proposed a community de-sysop proposal a year ago. What I'd like to see is for the basic concept to be put to an RfC, even if the details are left open. If the concept is approved, then work out some details, and have another RfC. Rinse and repeat until the process if fully worked out. I think here, at these pages, the process has gone much too far without an up or down community poll. My own preference is to make existing processes like RFC/U work more smoothly and become binding. If a bureaucrat sees an RFC/U that has gone heavily against an admin and the consensus is to desysop, the bureaucrat should be able to take that step. (At the moment we instead go to ArbCom and their either pass a motion or take a case.) The proposal here, I think, will fail because it lacks safeguards to prevent gaming. Certain administrators would perennially have disruptive editors launching process against them. These would never pass, but it would be endless stress and drama. Whatever process you propose needs to have a gatekeeper at the start to weed out frivolous requests. We don't want ten anti-Elbonia edit warriors head hunting Elbonian admins. Jehochman Brrr 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the consensus element prevent serious gaming though? The percentages are only a "rule of thumb", and Bureaucrats should be able to spot and discount obvious gaming, imo (providing the consensus margin is wide enough for them to work in). I'm happy for the poll I've just started to be part of a process of any length of time it takes to get it right. It is clear to me that we need this particular poll, though, and it will certainly advance us. If it is close (or very particular), perhaps you could suggest your own ideas for RfC. I am certainly set against any enforced deadlines. Nothing is set in stone yet as far as I'm concerned. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to extend the closure deadline to 15th January[edit]

Archived here.

Finalisation poll and two-phase polling at RrC (pre finalisation-poll discussion)[edit]

This discussions, Does 5.4 mean we need 'two-phase' polling at the final RFC? and Proposing 'final phase' of this draft RFC.

Please click on [show] to reveal >

Does 5.4 mean we need 'two-phase' polling at the final RFC?[edit]

What do people think about the final RFC being a two-phase poll? For me this is the only fair way to present the various support for 5.4. People were expressing different things in 5.4 - not necessarily voting for the final route. As I understood it, idea of 'consensus' (above strict percentages) was central to it.

Phase One could be:

Vote 1) Consensus-based decision made by bureaucrats, with a 70% baseline

Vote 2) Consensus-based decision made by bureaucrats, with a 60% baseline

Vote 3) Consensus-based decision made by bureaucrats, with no baseline specified (or changing 80% to 90% perhaps - Bureaucrats would find it hard to turn down 80% given the 'rule of thumb', and it could concivably be too low for some admins comfort. - added Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ).

Vote 4) General Oppose

Voters can 'support' as many of the four as they like (including 'General Oppose' if they want to), so we needn't have opposes for each choice, as everything is covered (including those who wish to oppose all, but want a contingency vote too). We then toll them up. A dead heat would require a round of Talk-page 'second option?' requests. Alternatively, we could request leaving optional second preferences at Phase One, (though people could complain of over-complicating).

If the opposes 'have it', the whole CDA proposal ends there. Otherwise we (We then) proceed to Phase Two, and poll the most supported option using For and Against. A number of people (like myself) would actually vote 'For' for any of the above versions of CDA (although I have my personal preferences) - others would not. The key is that we have honed it down to the most favoured options: people need a chance to specify what the final poll is, before supporting what may not be their exact preference. The opposers have a chance to 'vote out' the CDA at each phase, which is fair I think. (struck all Oppose vote detail, as an oppose vote in Phase One could prejudice the other votes)

Given the voting data we have from 5.4 (and other of the various polls too), I think it is right that we make the final public RFC as foolproof as we can. CDA is no small change to Wikipedia, and it demands a reasonably comprehensive poll, which would make the whole RFC less vulnerable to criticism too (and it will certainly be ciriticed however it is done).

Any support for this? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you on this Matt, and I'm one who argued for more range for the 'crats on the lower end. My current take, given where we are now in the process, is that it will be best if we stick to the rough 70-80% range for 'crat discretion, just as in a Rfa, for simplicity. At this stage, less is more. Again, let's keep this as much as possible an easy-to-understand reverse Rfa, and stay focused on that for the Rfc period. Thanks. Jusdafax 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
But who has said we must follow the original text of 5.4? The support for it wasn't that clear. If we do, aren't you worred that 1) The final RFA can be far too-easily criticised, and 2) It could easily fail? What will happen then, other than it being deemed as proof that the 'community' does not want CDA? I cannot be sure at all that 70/80 is what people want - so am very uneasy about proposing it without some kind of process to find out what form of 'consensus' people prefer. Basically, we are not quite at the end of the refining process. Like some other late-comers, I don't want to be rushed on this.
Also - if people really stop and think about the 'reverse RfA' idea, they will see how illogical it is. RfA is an optimistic thing, CDA a very negative one. Editors aren't that daft, and I think it is laying up something that can be easily broken down. It's just not wise wise to focus on it, and simplicity needs to be achieved in the presentation I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
"Any support for this?" Not from me. I agree with Jusda. Let me clarify about the reverse RfA concept. The idea is that if the community can give the sysop bit, then the community should be able to take it away. Here, that manifests as there needing to be a clear sentiment of the community as a whole supporting a motion to desysop, not just the sentiment of a small and unrepresentative group of editors. I think everyone actually agrees that CSD should work in that way, in principle. Where we disagree is as to how to define community consensus operationally for this proposed process: is it "consensus" as determined by bureaucrats, or is it "consensus" determined by bureaucrats using a non-binding <70% and >80% guideline, as, merely, a non-binding guideline. That has already been discussed by editors, and the consensus was for the latter. Matt has explained his concerns, and appears not to be persuading the rest of us, so that consensus appears to stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto. Matt, a number of us have been commenting and !voting on this process/proposal, originally drafted and presented by admin Uncle G, for some time, and I believe we have reached the point of diminishing returns on it. 70/80 is easy to understand, and makes the bar to desysop just as high as it is to hand over the mop. There is logic in that. As I see it, lowering the bar from 70/80 gives more ammo to the critics who want the concept of CDA shot down. I understand as a late-comer you'd like more time, but there will always be late-comers, and my own deep concern is that we are past the point of reasonable ongoing discussion, and starting to dither. I urge we finish up asap, set a date and just do the danged RfC asap. If it fails, it fails. Jusdafax 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Jusdafax - my proposal above is not about "changing to 60/80" though is it?! It is about using a fair two-phase poll to find out what people really want from 5.4. Wikipedia needs a 'parallel' admin-removal system yes, but there is no other "logic" in comparing 'handing over the mop' to taking it away. A parallel system would be to make an equally fair one - which does not mean simply copy the margin percentages. RFA is intrinsically optimistic - CDA is to stop-dead further offences being made! The consequences of 'failure' with CDA is very serious - as we can get a bad admin re-affirmed, and other admin/editors can resign etc in disgust. It has to be based on serious decision making. With RfA 'failure' is simply to discourage a potentially good admin, rather than have them try for adminship again - which we know they most-commonly do, as it is hard to pass it first time. They are just not comparable in terms of consensus margins.
I think the comment "If it fails, it fails" says everything, and I really don't share that attitude at all. In fact, I am getting very unhappy with the rush here guys - I feel like people's hopes have been raised unfairly, and I'm personally starting to wonder if I'm not wasting my time a bit. Where is everyone? Is the CDA seen as destined to fail now? I tell you something if it is - it won't make people like myself feel any better about Wikipedia. But then, of course - who gives a shit if we are happy or not? No-one is obliged to care about worker happiness, so no-one really does. A decent CDA can actually change that - a weak CDA could be useless at best, and the illusion of fairness at worse.
Another thing I haven't said about 70/80 - I think that in some cases people will simply not feel comfortable (and secure) enough about starting an CDA, if they feel it has to get 70% to be actually debated by the Bureaucrats. Peole will be much happier with there being a guaranteed informed 'consensus-based' decision on all CDAs that get through, with an wisely liberal margin (ie 60% - or even better - none at all). After all - there are plenty of safeguards to even getting a CDA on a bad admin going! If it passes them, it HAS to be taken seriously. Or else who will risk opening a CDA in difficult cases? Lets be honest - the completely obvious cases of admin 'gone bad' will be dealt with by admin anyway. CDA is for the more complicated less-obviously-apparent matters, which have enough public support. Ultimately, this is not so much about removing bad apples - it is really about how well/badly editors 'feel' about admin's accountability in everyday Wikipedia life. It is vital for Wikipedia that its editors feel that Administrators are at least 'potentially' removable, and not over-safeguarded with a practical 'job for life'.
All I'm asking is that we poll in two phases, to make sure we are voting on what people want. If 70/80 gets to be the final vote, so be it! We could really be messing it up at this stage guys - does anyone out there support me? To not poll intelligently/fairly, and to steamroller 70/80 through, I feel certain is risking too much. This could depend on whether you really want CDA to succeed or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think the 'community present' is intrusting us here to properly represent them, and create a final CDA proposal that not just represents them, but has a real chance of 1) being taken seriously, 2) getting through. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a good time for everyone to take a deep breath. The situation is not as dire as that. I think the "if it fails it fails" comment was said in haste, and no one intends this to fail. If other people speak up for an extra poll, then good. If not, then I hope Matt will accept that. Myself, I think we've already polled a lot, and we should respect what editors already said (which is what I'm trying to do, since I'm advocating something I originally tried to argue against, but which I've been persuaded to now support). Please let me suggest, instead, that editors simply comment here on how best to construct the "5.4" part of the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's no surprise that this issue clearly lies at the heart of the whole problem. Looking at the detailed discussion again, there are quite possibly as many who supported 5.4 who'd like 60% as there are who would support 70% (or higher). The difficulty is compounded by the regularly expressed view that being too specific with numbers is bad juju. I think the solution is to ensure the issue is spelled out clearly and ask two (and ONLY two) questions, in the reverse order suggested above. Something like:

Vote 1) General Support or Oppose

Vote 2) If enacted, 60% baseline or 70% baseline

That way round, if people give up half way through you can reasonably assume they don't care about the %age. Whether we like it or not I think 70% has to be the default setting however. Ben MacDui 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with that. I see what you are saying about the archived comments on 5.4, but I'm also sensitive to the archived comments on 5.3 (>50% threshold). If there was such resistance to >50%, are we really so sure it gets better at 60%? I think not. I also think there is a problem with presenting a proposal with that "vote 2" as part of it: the opposers are certain to say "look, this proposal isn't even finished, the people proposing it haven't thought it out, it should just be defeated". We all know they'll say that. Let's get this right before we put anything to a final vote. So, how many editors here really feel that we need to re-poll on this question at all? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually think the resistance to 50% here will be necessarily mirrored in a public poll - and we are actually polling on 60/80, which has had support without the loud dissent. I also think we are far, far more likely to be accused of unfairly fixing onto a single route (ie the half-popular 70/80), than to be chastised for giving people actual options to vote on. We need to repoll this question as we simply don't have an answer to it yet. It's not up to us to just pick one. This is supposed to be about Bureaucrats finding consensus - we need to give them a decent margin to do it in. I'm sure they would find it a thankless task if they had to start at 70%, and would rather resist CDA altogether with that margin percent. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is better to be clear, but what I hear Matt saying is that it isn't clear, and I can't abide the thought of another round of debate. Here is a suggested wording for the "Comments" Section per the project page here. I am not wedded to this, just trying to move the debate along. Ben MacDui 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We may be at the point where it would be more productive to see what other editors say, instead of the 3 or 4 of us debating it. (Honestly, at this point, I think it is only one editor who is unhappy about the issue, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong if other comments appear.) My preference would be to have another pre-poll first, but finally to have a simple up or down !vote on a single finished proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There is not only the one editor who is unhappy about this issue - that is guaranteed! We'll certainly have to poll again for sure, and more voices are essential. I still can't see why the public can't be intrusted with non-simplistic matters, but we could refine further in here. Also, if we get another round of debate - so be it, surely? I do appreciate what you've all been through (none of you would believe what I've been through myself trying to improve Wikipedia), but are you all sure your attitudes aren't failing you at the very last? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Vote 1, Vote 2 suggestion by MacDui (a little above) - I think whether people oppose CDA or not can depend on whether the baseline is 60 or 70%, and the outcome of vote 2 can effect vote 1. I think the only foolproof way is a two-phase poll of some kind. One phase polls can get very complicated when they are done fairly in matters like this. This RFA proposal of CDA the most important part - what everything has been leading up to, and I can't help feeling people are just desperate to get it over with!

POLL QUESTION: Perhaps we can run my two-phase poll above, but poll Phase 1 in here? (asking for second options, and without letting the Oppose votes end everything) - what do people think? We then take phase 2 (the baseline to be voted for/against) to the RFC - ie allow people to vote For/Against a CDA with a set baseline, and in doing so offer the community complete CDA proposal. How about that? We could advertise this final talk page poll the way the Motion to Close one was. Looking at the 'big names' in that should remind us all what we are up against. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, if we do decide to do more polling, I would hope we do the polling on the percent etc issue here as a first step, and then use the results from that to formulate an RfC with that question already agreed upon. I, for one, am not "desperate" for anything. My advice would be to see if more editors besides Matt come here (sans canvassing of course) over the next few days, and ask for more polling on this point. If they do, then let's do it. In the mean time, I suggest, again, that all take a deep breath, and focus for the moment on fixing up what we do agree upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to any further polling. There is no reason to suppose any more people would turn up than did so in the last round and (insofar as most editors care either way) I think it will be seen as putting off answering a fairly straightforward question. Re "I think whether people oppose CDA or not can depend on whether the baseline is 60 or 70%, and the outcome of vote 2 can effect vote 1." Interesting - I'd like to explore the interactions here.

Assuming everyone answers both questions:

if I am opposed to the principle I'm likely to !vote oppose/70%
if I am supportive of the principle I'm likely to !vote support/60%
there will be those who genuinely prefer support/70% - hard to know how many
if I am tending towards a conservative view of the %age (i.e. higher number) and see lots of support/60% I might well oppose.
if I am tending towards a radical view of the %age (i.e. lower number) and see lots of support/70% I might well oppose.

It is very hard to predict - which may be an advantage as it is hard for any us here to game it, consciously or otherwise. I do see an advantage of the two question approach is that it reduces the numbers in the fourth group from the outset and if that increases the numbers in the third group, surely that is an honest outcome.

An intriguing puzzle. Ben MacDui 17:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And a difficult puzzle (at least for me)! It's taken me a lot of thought to wrap my mind around it, but I think I understand it now. My take is that you actually point out a potential problem we could run into. If we go with two questions, people may look at the 60/70 question results-to-date, and try to game their overall support/opposition depending on which way it's going. The two-question approach just begs for unintended (bad) consequences. I really want to push now for a simple, single-question RfC. Something that has occurred to me over the last day or two is that the 60% version raises a question that could be difficult to answer: why is the number 10% lower for CDA than for RfA? Even though I started out as a fan of a much lower threshold, I definitely see now (based very much on what editors have said in the polling we've already done) a very attractive argument that the language about percents in CDA is the same as the language in RfA. Unless more editors comment here in the next couple of days that they want 60%, I would really advocate going with single-question 70%, and without needing another poll first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
CDA has nothing to do with WP:RFA! PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT! It is vitally important. CDA is not a de-election, and it is a real con to suggest that it is. CDA is for the community to advance the removal of a clearly destructive admin! A 70% baseline couldn't be more different for each one. Also, basic logic shows that you need at least two phases to poll three questions (60/70/oppose?). Sorry guys - but that should be obvious to both of you, but you are trying to fit square pegs in round holes in all manner of ways to end all this. The rushed attitude in here is really awful to me - sorry if that sounds rude, but it's genuinely from the heart. We MUST poll on this matter - we CANNOT just 'run' with one. We can do the first polling phase here, and the next (ie the answer) to the public at the RFC, or we can poll both phases to the public at the RFC. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Then poll. Don't do an RfC that is badly designed, designed to fail. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll prepare it now, and poll it tommorrow. I agree that a simpler RFC is better in terms of encouraging votes. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be sure to check with MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't understand how "(60/70/oppose?)" is 3 questions.
I'm also not sure where the "rushed attitude" issue comes in. I've said that I am not in favour of another separate poll and whilst I believe we need to launch the RfC by the end of this month, we have already extended the draft discussion and no date has yet been set. Part of my concern is that in another "poll" there is no reason to suppose someone won't propose 40%, 90% and/or 67.45% and it is unlikely the same group of people would participate in three different discussions on the same subject, making it increasingly hard to bring coherence to the process. Ben MacDui 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing 'final phase' of this draft RFC[edit]

  • "70%", "60%" and "Oppose CDA" don't strictly have to be "three questions", but you certainly have to poll them in two phases. The matter is just too complicated to poll them in a single phase. Asking "60% or 70%?" would mean the Oppose? vote could (and surely would) prejudice the percentage votes, eg. people could vote (or change their existing vote) to 70% if the Opposes get 'dangerously' high. Right now I'm inclined to think that opposing CDA could actually be better than settling for 70% (as it is so high it poses all kinds of problems) - but I might have gone the 'switching allegiance' way myself, had I rather seen a 70% baseline than vote 60% and see CDA completely fail. If the eventual public poll in is two phases of course, we may as well do it properly and poll "60 or 70%?" in 'phase one', and then poll the winner in 'phase two' as a For and Oppose. (It was a mistake of my own to put an unnecessary extra 'oppose' vote in my Phase One, as of course it causes the problems I've detailed above). We need to ensure that the poll simply allows people to vote for what they want without prejudice - or it will be ripped into, and rightly so. The alternative for us is to poll a 'phase one' poll in here asap (without the 'oppose' option of course), which will provide us with a single percentage to poll to the public.
  • This has to be over when it's over. If we are curtailing things in any way at this point, whether or not we have set the pending RFC date yet is simply irrelevant.
  • There is a possibility that the results will be split, so I suggest polling a realistic range for people to chose from (50%, 60%, 66%, 70% and 75% for balance), and asking for first (and) second and third preferences (if people have them), to take into account if the winning percentage is too close to second-place for comfort.
  • Personally, I rather we didn't have the 80% figure (essentially an 'auto-desysop', as Bureacrats I think would find it hard to support an admin who failed this "rule of thumb"). The CDA proposal we are working on (5.4) is principally about Bureaucrats finding consensus, in my eyes at least. Adminship is hardly a paid job after all (no comments please), and 80% would certainly mean the 'community trust' is gone, whether that is truly fair or not. But adminship is a fiercely-protected thing of course, and even 80% could be an issue to some alas. It could be wise to add to the poll "change the auto-desysop percentage from 80% to 90% (yes/no)?" (90% being more of a token percentage perhaps, but one that could allay fears) – I am suggesting adding that here. For me, an eventuality like 60-90% does seem like a more reasonable 'consensus-finding range' for Bureaucrats to 'fish out' the mistakes and unfair prejudices from, should they need to.
  • I originally started this section at the bottom of the page to grab attention. Are people going to see it moved up here? I do feel there has been something of a 'dimmed light' and a near-closed door (if not an entirely locked one) since 4th Jan. I think I've discussed things very reasonably, but it's now time for some real light to be cast on this matter again, in the time-honoured way of getting some decisive input...
CDA 'Finalisation Poll'
(proposal for polling asap)
The CDA proposal which had the most support was 5.4 (essentially, that Bureaucrats look for consensus within a 70% to 80% "rule of thumb" margin). Amongst those who support proposing a CDA proposal to the community, there is a consensus is that we utilise 5.4. (The finalised CDA will be proposed at an eventual RfC). However, the full support for 5.4 is not clear, especially on using 70% as the 'baseline' percentage. Percentage issues were posed by people who supported and opposed the principle of 5.4, and the most-suggested ammendment (which came from the those in support of it) was to change the baseline to 60%. Also, since Jan 4th, it has been suggested that another 'phase' is needed at this 'Draft RfC' stage, to gather more information from people, and to facilitate the finalisation of the proposal.
This poll (which hopefully will constitute the final phase) is intended to complete the CDA proposal. This poll will run for 7 days, after which the proposal will be finalised, and put to the community at RfC.
Please note, this is not the place to oppose the idea of CDA - that can be done at the final RfC. Please leave comments in the "Comments" section below, and not in the poll itself.
Vote 1:
Do you prefer a 'baseline' percentage of; 50%, 60%, 66%, 70% or 75%?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will need to see this 'baseline' percentage reached before they consider whether the Administrator standing under CDA should be de-sysoped.
Please give a single-value second preference if you can, in the format; "75 (70) - signed", or "66 (60 or 50) - signed" etc.
* 50 (60) – ConcernedEditor*
* 60 (50 or 66) - LiberalWikipedian*
* 75 – ConcernedAdmin*
Vote 2:
Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'.
* 80 – ConcernedEditor*
* 90 - LiberalWikipedian*
* 90 – ConcernedAdmin*
(* these are examples of how it could pan out, not intended as examples to provide in the actual poll)
  • What do you think? Please bear in mind that I feel so strongly that a poll is needed, that I will be making one of some kind or other. If people are to be aroused from their slumbers, it may as well be a decent and enlightening one. If this is to be the last opportunity before the final jump, we need to get it right. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I missed my promised "tomorrow" by 10 minutes (and the time to discuss it) - sorry! Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
About doing it or not, I am kind of neutral, but do not have any objection. But I do feel strongly that no decision should be made without first hearing back from MacDui. If we do it, I'd like to suggest the following polishes to the wording of the poll questions. First, we need to be sure to provide a link to the archived discussion of the options that have already been discussed, for people to read if they are unfamiliar with it. Then, I think "baseline percentage" is confusing to people who haven't followed all the intricacies of this debate. I also think giving the option of non-factor-of-10 numbers makes things more complicated than they need to be. And I think we can assume that there will be a 10-point spread between the lower and the higher number. So, I would go with a single question. I would list the following choices:
  • 50%-60%
  • 60%-70%
  • 70%-80%
  • 80%-90%
and for each, let people indicate "first choice", "second choice", "third choice", or "fourth choice", with brief comments if they wish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm shattered right now so I'll address this tomorrow, other than to say you and MacDui can polish things as much as you like. MacDui seems to be neutral like yourself, but I won't go ahead until he comments for sure (obviously things are best if we are all in tune - consensus at this minute is a small crowd indeed!). Re 66% I used it as it is a two-thirds margin, and I imagined some awkward blighter demanding it! Who knows, it may even be the one to get through. The 'balancing' 75 is three quarters, and I couldn't use 80 obviously. Can't think what you mean by making them ranges at the moment. The choice thing I didn't think of - I'll have to think about that tomo. Matt Lewis (talk)
And thank you for working on it. Yeah, I think we both should get some sleep! I think MacDui said he has strong reservations, so do let's wait for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some revisions, mainly cursory. Hopefully it is close to something we can poll soon. I suggest informing all previously-interested parties in the way the Motion to Close was. I actually didn't get that notice (I came in too late and found all this by chance), so obviously we need to maximise all the allowable routes. As this isn't a FOR/AGAINST poll as such, and as the CDA in itself is now (essentially) one single proposal that can be either voted 'in' or 'out' at the RfC, I cannot personally see how WP:CANVAS laws can come into play now. Everyone should know about this in my opinion. I'd even put the final RfC in the watchlist 'notice space' if I could. I think there should be a specific place on Wikipedia just for major public votes (ie not RfC - which is clearly both over-used and underplayed), and polls in that new place should be able to make use of the top-page noticespace. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Those following this page closely know my feelings; I will make it clear again for anyone else. The percentage to de-admin should be the same as it takes to make an admin... that roughly between 70 and 80 percent is at bureaucrat discretion, below 65 is no consensus (but could be taken up by ArbCom) and over 80% !vote to de-admin is clearly take-the-mop time. Keep it simple, please. My view: Matt is well-meaning but is needlessly complicating this. Time to start the RfC should be in the next 1-2 weeks max. Let's go, please. Jusdafax 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If you like 65% then vote for 66%! We can't keep it simple, because people aren't 'stupid'. Sorry - I just cannot see how CDA is comparable to RfA at all - they both do completely different things, and CDA is nothing like a reverse process of RfA. I've written more on that to your comment on it below. I'm doing this for 4 reasons: 1) 70% was not a clear consensus, 2) that would make the final poll easily ciritcised, 3) I don't personally think 70% will win, 4) I do think that 70% could be gamable, lead to a false sense of accountability, and thus damage WIkiedia. This can be polled today, and the RfC can still be in 2 weeks max.Matt Lewis (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Matt, I appreciate that you really mean well, but I have to say a few things here. First, I don't think you really took in what I suggested about re-wording the poll, assuming we do a poll at all; it's more like you are just re-tweaking your own wording. More importantly, I agree with something Jehochman says on this page: that we need to be careful about not just talking amongst a few of ourselves in an echo-chamber. I've been trying to keep an open mind and a neutral stance about whether or not to poll. But, reading all of the comments that have been coming in to this talk, I really do not see anyone besides Matt advocating the poll, and quite a few people advocating against it. Speaking as someone who has been relatively receptive to polling, I have to say that when I read consensus here, the consensus is to go forward with 70-80, and ask the community to respond to that. As Jusdafax just said, keep it simple. At this point, I do not see a compelling reason to poll, and I think continuing to push for a poll may be unhelpful, however well-meaning it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see any suggested re-wording, so obviously I tweaked it myself.
I just don't understand the 'keep it simple' philosophy here - why? The poll isn't complex at all, but it is clearly needed to prove that we have a genuine concensus and are not simply a closed-shop 'echo chamber'. We already have had criticism below that too little collaboration has been seen in here - the only way around that is to cover all the angles. Nobody can complain then. We are simply laying ourselves up for masses of criticism if we don't - and it would be fair criticism too. In the light of Jehochman's comment here, as soon as MacDui responds, I'll be polling something. I've had support off this page for it. For some reason people can't get to grips with this page. But it IS a long and difficul page. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues at hand.

First of all the general principle - if there community support for WP:CDA to be enacted as described above?

Secondly, there is the less clear-cut issue of the way the outcome shall be determined, expressed as a guideline in percentage terms. Four separate ideas were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC of which only one received consensus, namely that for an Administrator to be de-sysopped a minimum of 50 editors should take part and that as "a general descriptive rule of thumb" more than 70% in favour of de-sysopping would be required. The wording is deliberately phrased to allow the closing Bureaucrat leeway, just as at an RfA. However, some participants expressed an opinion in favour of this guideline being more than 60% in favour of de-sysopping (an option that was not formally discussed). Choosing between these two options is then the second question to be addressed. (Note that both 30% and 50% were debated and rejected. An option for 80% is, in practical terms, more-or-less opposition to the process as a whole. 70% is the default position and consensus is required to change this.) Ben MacDui 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Start the RfC in ten days (Jan. 25, 2010)[edit]

Extended content

To me the beauty of Community de-adminship, regardless of what the percentage range is to de-sysop, is how complementary it is to ArbCom's duties. A Cda can be implemented if ArbCom can't or won't act on a problem admin. On the other hand, if an admin has crossed the line in obvious or blatant ways, then a Cda could save ArbCom a messy bit of work. And an admin who keeps his mop with 'only' 60% voting to remove it will presumably be on their best behavior due to the resulting scrutiny.

I say yet again, I was originally in favor of lowering the 70% bar, but now feel we should keep it as a rough guide and let the 'crats make the final call... just like an Rfa. Whether Matt, or anyone else currently commenting here, would or would not vote for it is beside the point. Jehocman is correct in pointing out, as Trypto notes, that we are down to just a few people chasing our tails here! Yet the recent !vote on the closure motion was two to one against. I take it everyone else awaits the !vote. Let's schedule a vote today, and I propose Monday, Jan. 25 as the start of an RfC re: Community de-adminship, with the next ten days used for publicity and whatever minor tweaks are needed to the final wording. I propose the RfC to last three weeks. Jusdafax 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This 'CDA is a reverse RfA' is simply your own opinion - 5.4 did not mention RfA at all! Neither does the basis of the CDA proposal. CDA and RfA have nothing relevant in common. 70% has no consensus. You, me, Trypto OR MacDui didn't even originally want 70% - I am entitled to consider than at face value too.
This section simply isn't cricket - you've jumped in with it because you know I'm waiting for MacDui, simply because I've been asked to by Trypto (who is or was neutral on polling). You've also tried to freeze a 'two against one' discussion in time, and call it consensus. I'm not wasting my time while people flutter around provarocating, changing their minds, or trying things like this. Ethically, it is no better than the Motion to Close - because it is trying to manipulate progress by stopping something from happening. I've been as fair as can be, and straight down the line, but now it's time for the finalisation poll. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I recommend presenting a broad idea first that can be approved, and then separately present details. Too much all at once will overwhelm people, and they will run away screaming "bureaucracy". I want something workable to pass. Jehochman Brrr 19:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you identify any extant cases where the "ArbCom can't or won't act on a problem admin"? Or is this problem purely hypothetical? Do you see this proposal as solving an existing problem (please be specific — what admin has the community identified as worthy of desysopping, but has not been desysopped during a suitable Arbitration) or as a just-in-case mechanism that isn't needed for anything right now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
CDA doesn't have to solve any problem to be proposed (although it will solve a few - see the FAQ). There is no way we are going to go through all this again though - not without doing something constructive first...Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
So, the answer is no — this proposal doesn't seek to resolve any specific, clearly-defined problems, nor have you made any significant attempt to resolve those problems by other means. Perhaps 'something constructive' you could be doing is figuring out what this proposal is supposed to accomplish? Having specific, clear goals in mind might make it easier both to decide on a process and to determine the community's support (or lack thereof) for any process you develop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey sunshine, don't be so bloody rude. Only a fool would edit as I have done here without reason. I don't need to "figure out what CDA is supposed to accomplish", and I've written plenty on it already. The FAQ (WP:CDAFAQ) covers a few of the main points. A decent version of CDA would make administrators more accountable (and so behave more wisely), and bureaucrats more accountable too (as they would be obliged to find consensus in an honest manner). It would bring editors and bureaucrats 'closer together' in the bigger picture. RfC is overused (and undersold), and CDA is something specific, that would be more respected because of it. It would reduce the cynicism that adminship is a job for life and lead to a better editing environment because of it: it will make editors feel that admin are not completely able to control them. Its all about the fact it is there, not so much about its use. It is a natural development for Wikipedia that will benefit it wholesale. It properly shows the level of community faith in an admin. It avoids issues arbcom have with content. Some think it will automatically lead to more Administrators by making RFA less of a bit deal. It will certainly make being an Administrator a more attractive idea to those who wouldn't touch such a thanklessly unaccountable roll with a bargepoll (and there are countless potential admin like that). Admins will be able to trust each other more, not just editors trust admin. More people would be happy with becoming an admin. There is no reason that problems with adminship have to be dealt with any one way. There is no reason that CDA cannot be valid just because other methods are in place. CDA has a chance of getting through, whereas other changes may not. It will likely be wanted by the community (we don't know until we poll do we?), My sincere apologies if I have left anything out. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
To Jusdafax's proposal, I say something I said to another similar proposal: Oppose in specifics, but support in spirit. Like many here, I think we need to move beyond our present insular talk, and get to where the community has a chance to speak. But I also firmly believe in WP:There is no deadline. I say "no" to setting that date, no in a big way. MacDui said the other day he has a cold, and it's just courteous to wait for him. We'll do it when we're ready to do it. I'd rather editors stop disputing things in this talk, and instead work on proofreading the proposal Guide, the proposal Example page, and the FAQ. I don't know when we'll agree that it's ready for prime time, and neither do you. Maybe soon, maybe not. But let's try to do it right, to do it the best we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I did read last night that ol MacDui had a cold - and I do sympathise too. As someone who doesn't want to rush (but does want to advance) I was happy to wait. I think things are advancing on their own accord though now, and we are likely for repeated discussion on the merits of CDA if we don't do something soon. Consequently I'm going to poll what we have. I know MacDui had reservations - but he also was not entirely negative either (and certainly accepted the idea of polling 60 and 70 at the RfA, if not necessarily here - but that would need two phases). OK, adding 66 and 75 etc is my idea, but I'm banking on them making the poll more inclusive, and less open to criticism (which is not a 100% possible thing to do at any point with this, as we know). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear me - "Waiting for MacDui" - sounds like a topic for a ghastly Youtube parody of some kind. Nice to take a short break, look at all the intermediate edits and be able to say that I found a lot to agree with. As I understand it this poll is now in place. If it comes up with something new and useful, that's well and good. I'm in favour of setting a soon-to-launch date - it focusses the mind and 25th Jan is probably as good as anything. If something isn't fixed by then it is no big deal to wait a day or two beyond that, but it should be possible. I'm also impressed by Jehochman's input about "broad idea first" - not because I think it need dramatically alter any proposal, but I do think it is an important reminder that whilst some will read every sentence on the subject and come up with detailed critiques, most won't. Whilst the analogy is very far from an exact one, the "reverse RfA" idea is so easy to grasp it is clearly part of the appeal. Unless the poll provides dramatic evidence I'm therefore inclined to drop the "second question" idea and just go for the simple yes/no based on the 70%. I'm concerned that this will make the proposal less likely to succeed as there will be some who oppose on the grounds that it may prove impractical to use, but at this point I think that is just the way it is. Thanks to all for their input and apologies if I was a little slow on the uptake on this one. Ben MacDui</fontt> 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this - sorry I missed this comment first time round. Perpaps you would be willing to vote in the poll, now it is up? I thought Jehochman made a good point too, and I hope this degree of interaction will continue. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ben, I suspected you would agree. The simpler, the better. The honest selling points: Reverse Rfa, 70/80 guideline, final call on the desysop to be made made by 'crats. I appreciate you supporting the Monday. Jan. 25 (or, if need be, thereabouts) RfC startup, which I think should be for three weeks. You and Trypto have been doing the heavy lifting on this issue for a long time, and my sincere thanks to you both for getting us this far. My instincts tell me to go for it now, and I'm delighted you feel the same. Jusdafax 18:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jusdafax. MacDui, it sounded to me more like Samuel Beckett (bad joke). Seriously, I agree with the point MacDui makes about, when we finally do go with the final RfC, we should probably not have a second question. WP:KISS! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to repeat this: There is surely no way CDA can be sold as a "reverse RfA"! It is very much your own preoccupation, and it isn't an "honest" notion at all, as it's just plain wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but you do keep pushing it, and was nothing to do with the content of the CDA proposal. 70% at RfA and 70% CDA do not compare at all. CDA is not a reverse election - it is the serious matter of preventing further damage happening to Wikipedia by removing a clearly damaging admin. To suggest otherwise gives people the impression the the community can de-elect an admin simply because they don't think he or she is likely to do a good job! (ie the reverse of the typical reasons given at RfA). Comparing the two is a serious 'no no', and the two 70%'s for optimistic and highly negative matters do not compare anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot to read here, and it takes a long time, though the bulk of the discussion appears to centre on the same points - what exact percentage of support is needed for consensus, shall we have a poll - and what form will it take, and is a discussion to remove access to some Wiki tools the same as a discussion to allow access to some Wiki tools. I think people are getting too caught up in the exact definition of WP:Consensus, and are looking to reinvent the wheel. Consensus is not a hard line, and it would be inappropriate for people here to pre-decide for every future CDA discussion what the exact line is for consensus. It would be helpful and appropriate to give guidance, but not to give absolutes. The wording I proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC/Archive_1#5._Need_more_concrete_percentages_for_de-sysoping is "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." We are talking about allowing the closing Crat to decide the consensus, and simply giving the commonly accepted "rule of thumb" range of 70 - 80% as the typical percentage accepted by the community in decisions like this. However a Crat can decide to go beyond that range depending on circumstances. As that wording was broadly accepted in the poll, I don't see the need to alter it to take it outside of the general understanding of WP:Consensus, or outside of the communities' acceptance of what consensus would be in the closest procedure to this one. Remember, nothing is fixed for ever on Wikipedia, and if people in a year's time feel that adjustments need to be made, then a discussion will take place at that time. As we have a consensus on wording which has prior wide consensus through actual usage, then we should accept that and move on. Matt Lewis' views that this CDA process is about protecting Wikipedia from damage is not my understanding of what this process is about. I think that is clearly specified somewhere that it is not about emergency de-sysopping. My understanding, also, is that this is a reverse RfA: it is not about protecting damage to Wikipedia, it is about assessing the community's trust in letting an individual have certain tools which can interfere with harmonious editing if used inappropriately.SilkTork *YES! 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork. I think your comment nails it down, and I am in agreement with every word you say. Let's stop dithering and move forward with an RfC starting on the 25th, as I propose. The time is at hand. Jusdafax 11:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I never use the term "Emergency desysopping" - I've made a number of points about 70% not being comparable at RfA and CDA (and optimistic and negative matter) - and made the crucial point that an admin has to be repeatedly doing something that is seriously wrong for a CDA to be started against him! If CDA is simply a 'reverse RfA', then why all the safeguards?
This is a huge point of disagreement here. If I've really got this so wrong, I won't waste another minute here, and I don't think CDA has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. (I wouldn't vote for it for sure - I'd rather see RfA improved, and look at review processes etc - which will eventually happen anyway). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone can see some aspect of the current proposal that would be problematic, or could not be solved during a discussion at RfC, then I support moving forward to RfC - either tomorrow or no later than the 25th. There appears to be no consensus for another poll, - indeed, there is clear opposition. There are very few people involved in this at the moment as there is a limit to people's good will and interest and people have drifted away. This needs to move forward soon before the proposal loses all momentum - already it shows signs of dying on its feet. I don't agree with haste, but when there's stagnation it's time to move things on rather than hold them up further. There is a proposal, people have discussed the proposal, the broad terms are clear, let's not get held up on the colour of the WP:BIKESHED. SilkTork *YES! 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As did Jusdafax above, I also want to thank SilkTork. I also appreciate that Matt is trying very hard and in good faith to be helpful here. Let me also point out that I made this edit to the language in the proposal. Please take a look at it, both to evaluate whether or not I was right, and to see whether or not it helps with some of the concerns that are discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
How you can make these kind of comments on consensus is just beyond me! We clearly do not know. Running with this like you want pretty much guarantees its failure. The polls will be properly advertised to previous voters here later today, then we'll see if people respond to them or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, your wording tweak is fine. Silk, amen again... a full RfC of Cda "no later" than Jan. 25, 2010. Jusdafax 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Ben MacDui 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA userboxes update[edit]

If anyone's interested, the various CDA userboxes have been adapted to the standard userbox dimensions. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.[edit]

VOTE 1, VOTE 2, VOTE 3 and VOTE 4 in the four vote poll, and various discussion.

Extended content

To jump down to the poll, click here. Please make any comments during the poll in the following section (which is directly above the poll). Thanks.

Comments[edit]

  • I don't see any section for objecting to 'crats making this decision. It is not really what they were chosen for. What is wrong with arbcom making the determination? I also don't like that it is a vote and does not mention anything about the validity of the reasons for desysop(as in evidence and policy etc... and not grudges and other invalid reasons). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The idea is that you vote For/Against CDA at the final RfC, not here. A Motion to Close has already been polled, and it failed 2:1. This poll is simply to finalise the current CDA proposal. I'll add an Object if you like (stating that it won't stop the final proposal). Is there any more interest for that (or any other forms of objecting - such as a radically new form of CDA is needed)? I have set an official start time for 23:30 UTC tonight (about 2 hours time). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • How about starting with the very basic question. "For desysopping, should we use (a) existing process of RFC/U and then to ArbCom, or (b) a new community desysop process [summarize and explain details, which may be subject to fine tuning]?" I think you need to make the question very succinct and clear so that people will actually read it and form an opinion. You may find 2:1 that people are perfectly happy with existing process, and that nothing new is desired. You ought to do that before expending further volunteer time here. Jehochman Brrr 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we vote here for having a two-phase proposal at RfC? In short; (1) What we have (RfC/U-Arb or CDA?), (2) CDA? One problem I personally have is that it is not a case of either/or to me - CDA is a valuable thing in its own right, it has nothing to do with RfA (etc) and there doesn't actually have to be anything broken to fix it. I'm happy if you want to add this as a Vote 3 though. I see no reason why this (possibly) policy-making process should be forced into simplicity. You are right btw, I'm not paid. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to add the two ideas above as two more Votes in the above poll. I know people will complain (people always do) but sod it - someone has to find a way of getting information from people, or this this proposal will simply be run at 70%, with too many people critical of the final stages. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. More shotgun 'voting' on a series of assorted questions, almost all of which beg the question. The point (or, assuming some good faith, the effect) of a complex, multistage vote should be obvious by now. If this proposal's proponents can get some sort of majority of editors to say 'yes' to some variant of the question "Would you like to possibly have a desysopping process that might be something like what's been discussed here, with some caveats, sort of, in the future?", then we will see more browbeating of critics with but people want this, shut up!. Vote 3 above exemplifies this attitude problem; it's a built-in get-out-of-jail-free card for this proposal's proponents. Even if the community says "No!" in a clear and open vote on the proposal, Vote 3 seeks permission to go back to beating the dead horse. Moreover, by asking the wishy-washy "Is this kind of sort of maybe possibly like something you could say yes to in some way?" question first, you're trying to both channel opinion (see push poll) and to bias any reading of the final, clear "Can we go live with this, yes or no?" question. (If it's close, a yes on the first question might be used to inappropriately argue that a maybe on the second question counts as a yes — and that's a dishonest, bullshit way to fake a consensus.)

I think it's rather telling that the only opportunity offered here to offer criticism of this proposal as currently formulated (beyond rearranging the deck chairs by fiddling with numbers a bit) is marked as 'unofficial'. Again, it's a way to discourage anyone who has any questions or concerns from participating in the process, because the supporters just don't want to hear it. We're explicitly told that our contributions are unwanted, and the proposal's proponents wish to maintain the illusion of near-unanimous support for as long as possible. The FAQ is particularly egregious in its minimization of criticisms and evasion of tough questions.

If this proposal has the vast, silent support that its proponents keep vociferously claiming, then call it ready when you've finished playing with your polls, grow a pair, and ask a simple yes/no question: "Should this be policy?". If you're genuinely confident, ask the question posed by Jehochman above: "Should desysopping on Wikipedia proceed by the existing process (RFU/U and Arbitration) alone, or should the additional CDA be added?" (I paraphrase). Heck, just ask the important question and be done with it: "Will making this process a Wikipedia policy ultimately improve the encyclopedia?" — the only question that really matters. As long as you're afraid to ask those questions – clearly, openly, honestly, and without caveats, conditions, and loopholes – then you know that you don't really have the community's support. And if you keep jerking us around with polls about polls about surveys about votes about polls, then you're also going to lose (what's left of) the community's trust and respect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All of that makes incorrect assumptions, and lacks WP:AGF. This is a point in your Wikipedia life where you need it. The poll is not out to con anyone - quite the opposite. I don't appreciate your OTT language at all, and would appreciate if you toned it down a few notches. This combined with you last comment by the way, is a direct insult to me as well - that how I see it, and I suggest you simmer down. I have answered your lazy question on how CDA will help Wikipedia above. You are actually addressing me both personally and in manner that suggests I've written every poll in this place! That isn't a clever way of thinking is it? These things are not perfectly envisioned or made - it is simply immature to expect them to be. Join the process, and don't try and needlessly pick at it in places where nothing is wrong. Who are you to say how others will give or reserve their respect? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, if anyone proposes poorly thought-out, likely useless, potentially damaging, probably disruptive policy, I'm going to call them on it. If anyone (or any group) minimizes and evades serious questions about their policy proposals, I'm going to say so. If you're going to call me stupid and lazy (and condescend with instructions to 'simmer down') because you can't bear to hear that you have an ugly baby, so be it. If you won't take my comments seriously, then have a go at Jehochman's question above. It's by far the most important issue, and one that no one here seems to be willing to take seriously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I encorporated it into the Poll. Why don't you focus on the actions? Matt Lewis (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, this argument isn't going anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put a note on his talk page - whatever people think of the poll, I don't deserve all that at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that I want to get in the middle of this (I don't!!!), but there's also WP:DENY. Just a thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose you've read that essay, have you Tryptofish? I hope that it's not your intention to suggest that I'm a vandal simply because I think your proposal is poorly thought out. That's after Matt Lewis decided that I'm stupid, lazy, irrational, or drunk for disagreeing with him. I'll note that neither of you have actually taken the time to improve your process, preferring instead to attack me. Way to stay classy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ten, I was suggesting that Matt stop engaging with you and leave you alone. Since you are addressing me, let me please draw your attention to Q3 at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. If after reading that, you still want to ask these questions, then you may want to read the essay I mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have read the FAQ. I find that it while it contains many questions, it lacks important answers. Indeed, the answer to Q3 appears to be, in essence, 'We're not answering that question.' One should not have to dig through twenty-two candidate statements and discussions to attempt to find an answer to the FAQ question. I find the desire to move all of the conflict, controversy, and difficult issues to a point in time after this proposal is enacted understandable, but not appropriate.
I still don't understand why you keep referring to WP:DENY. That essay deals with persistent vandals, not with editors who ask awkward questions about policy proposals. If that's not the essay that you're referring to, then you should probably clarify your remarks. Note that I had disengaged from this discussion until you jumped in with your odd comment, despite Matt Lewis' multiple (implicitly and explicitly insulting) parting shots. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, and my original comment was addressed to Matt. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, which vandal were you referring to in your reference to WP:DENY? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's more like I was thinking of the image on that page, so, in fact, I never really had vandalism in mind. And with that, I will follow my own advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Classy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Query need for poll[edit]

  • This poll seems a bit too complex, and appears to be asking the wrong questions. If there is to be a question before taking it to a RFC, it could simply be:
  • Are there any problems with taking the CDA proposal to RFC on Jan 24th?
  • Not a poll, but a question looking for thoughtful answers. SilkTork *YES! 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And my personal response would be that I see no problems that cannot be addressed as they arise during the RFC. I would support going forward with the proposal as written. SilkTork *YES! 11:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I moved the above here, as it doesn't look like something to place your 'support' next to (ie a kind of vote). Whether the term 'poll' was right or not, it has been used, and re-defining the term within the polling space will simply confuse matters.
I really can't see why the above can't be said within the poll (ie if you wan't 5.4 to remain as SilkTork proposed, then vote 70% and 80% - as Tryptofish has). There was certainly no clear-cut consensus just to 'run' with 5.4, and ALL the main participants in the post-Jan 4th discussions that preceeded this poll, actually admitted to deep-down really supporting a "60%" baseline over SilkTork's 70%! That simply has to be taken into account, along with feelings expressed in the Motion to Close. This is what its all about, folks - trying to work out what consensus actually is (and - crucially - is likely to be). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As I think I have said Matt, whilst I personally think 60% is a more sensible guideline than 70%, this and other issues can be sorted out by the community as needed after an implementation. We simply can't know for sure in advance what will work successfully and what won't. I'm therefore happy to run with the proposal as is, per SilkTork's comments. I will of course continue to watch here to see what unfolds. Ben MacDui 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In an ideal world getting CDA in, then agreeing to iron things out afterwards (whether immediately, or after a trial period) would be brilliant, as it would maximise the editors deciding upon the detail, and hence guarantee the best consensus all round. Looking at what people have been saying over time though, I just can't see anything other than a full, foolproof and consensus-happy proposal will have a chance of surviving those who are waiting to critise it. Valid criticism can be disasterous for proposals like this: we will see lots of, Oppose (per mrshocked) - unhappyadmin. To be be partisan here: we need to give them as little oportunity to criticise this as possible. In doing that, we can also be doing things properly and methodically too. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This poll might be helpful. If you take complicated proposals with many options to the whole community, most of the arguments tend to be around the edges (because those questions are safer and easier) rather than on the main point(s), and it all gets very complicated ... better to narrow the scope first. It's not guaranteed to help, but it's better to give it a try than not to. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete[edit]

  • You know, Jclemens hit the problem with this "5.4 option" square on the head. Unfortunately, the proposal is slightly unfinished as it currently stands, which I think is reflected in the jumbled opinions regarding "Vote 1", and to a lesser extent it's also affecting "Vote 2". There seems to be an unstated assumption among just about everyone about the level of participation involved in anything having to do with this process. Some of the participants here clearly seem to assume that the level of participation in this process will be comparatively high to current participation in RFA's, if not higher (comments such as Mr.Z-Man's vote for 90% in "Vote 2" seem representative here). I think that's a safe assumption to make for when this first goes live, when the most high profile CDA's are likely to occur (new processes being enthusiastically explored in order to "pick the low hanging fruit"), but as time goes on I'd expect that level of participation to inevitably drop off at least slightly, and probably even to levels of participation seen in run of the mill relatively non-contentious XFD's (where, for example, getting 10 participants is seen as a good quorum). I'm not actually trying to sell any particular solution here, since I don't really have a strong personal opinion on this, but I think that this issue with this vote should be addressed somehow. The easiest thing to do, in my estimation, would be to state that the closer has discretion here, but that's essentially my own vote for "vote 2", so I can't really recommend that as a neutral option here. We'd really need to discuss this before moving on however, I'd think.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that some admin are colourfully fearing (or painting) the worst kinds of "mob rule", when it is far more likely that a 'bad' admin would not see the required 50 editors voting in 'support' of a CDA against him, and thus would survive for a kind of 'vindicated' and effectively untouchable period. I think people will be thinking a lot about "when" to start cases, thinking "is this too early?". At baseline as high as 70%, I personally think that many editors would not risk a CDA at all.
What is most unresolved to me, is what CDA is actually supposed to be. Is it a reverse WP:RfA where people can simply vote out an admin they don't like (some people like to see it as this), or is it just a place where 10 deeply concerned editors can a start the 'process' on a damaging admin, and effectively stop him from damaging Wikipedia further? (after all, they need to have a lot of evidence, and try a lot of other methods, to pass the CDA entry criteria). I favour the latter, but think it will give a false sense of 'fairness' if the baseline is as high as 70%. It is far too easy to game, with backers of the accused knowing they can follow the runnings, and fairly easily keep someone safe.
With a fair baseline, CDA will transform all of Wikipedia. But it has to have that fair baseline to be seen as a deterrent. CDA's simple presence will automatically make admin behave more 'accountably' and responsibly (making wiser decisions), and it will bring bureaucrats and editors closer together in the bigger picture. It avoids Arbcom issues with content. It will generally made editors less cynical of admin (and their 'jobs for life'), it will make admin less cynical of admin (important too), it will make more good people want to become admin, it could make more people be able to become admin, and a CDA (which doesn't have be compared to anything else) will be something specific - not just a technical part of the over-used (and undersold) RfC. There is a huge benefit in that. Ideally a CDA would be run in a place that is only for important community matters, but that is way off in the future I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC Requirement[edit]

  • In my comment at Vote 3, I note that I think RfC should be a requirement. Currently the guide holds "a suitable venue, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User," as the requirement. AN is not a suitable replacement for RfC. RfC has the structure, page focus, and longevity that such a prerequisite requires. Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What does question 3 mean?[edit]

It looks like people have two different interpretations of what the third question means: some are interpreting it as a suggestion for a two-phase proposal for the community to adopt CDA, and some as a two-phase CDA process itself. Perhaps it's not hugely important since people see fairly opposed to both, but some clarification would still be useful so we know what has actually been decided. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right - I hadn't noticed how some people have misread it (or started to after a point)! I'll add an extra note, and contact the previous voters. We cannot afford any ambiguity. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I added Q3 to the poll to try and appease Jehochman (who wants a yes/no question asked first at the RfC stage - though he might not have wanted the two 'phases' that close to each other, I don't know as he didn't respond). When it looked like a CDA proposal based on 5.4 (ie 70%/80%) was heading to RfC without any further polls here, I suggested having a two-phase poll at RfC to ask people what baseline percentage people preferred (as consensus wasn't clear on this). There was more interest in having the 'first phase' in here than having a two-phase poll at RfC, hence this poll now. I took the opportunity to clarify the 'threshold' percentage too, and to address all criticisms/suggestions (hence Q's 3 and 4) Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats[edit]

Evolution of RfBs over time.

What is being done to address the inevitable swathe of votes along these lines:

  • Oppose giving any more power to the bureaucrats while their ranks are still filled by members who have not passed the rigourous 'modern' RfB. 'RfBs' like Ilyanep's and Cprompt's are useless in assuring that the people closing these RDAs have the support of the community. --Concerned User 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I set out the issue in my post here; there are genuine concerns about the status of some of the older bureaucrats. Cimon avaro's RfB closed with under 75% support; we have four crats who have never passed an RfB at all (they were the 'original' crats when the role was created in 2004); and while the support percentage has generally remained fairly constant throughout the role's lifetime, seven current crats, including two active in the past 3 months, had less than 20 participants in their RfB. This situation will prompt opposition to any proposal that increases the responsibility of the bureaucrat group. How do you intend to respond to such comments? Happymelon 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we need to think about this. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

B-crats should only be given extra powers if they are subject to term limits.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One proposal at a time, and not this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am so confused[edit]

I can't make head nor tail what this is all about :( I'm confused about the following:

  1. What is a community de-adminship? What are the proposed mechanism and criteria? This isn't clear to me at all.
    Please read the CDA proposal here: WP:GCDA
  2. Why do we need it?
    Please the the FAQ: (WP:CDAFAQ)
  3. Why do people want it?
    Please the above FAQ (which is still being completed).

Can someone explain, or give me a quick three sentence (or near to this) answer? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and make all these pages link to each other better - it is still a little messy I agree. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
General comment here: Wikipedia can get naturally bloated as time goes on with these matters. It is just one of those things - and no reason to stop anything, or for undue criticism in my opinion. By in large, people have done their best. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Vote 2[edit]

After seeing the votes and having heard the arguments, I'd prefer an upper limit to the so-called discretionary range of 85%, rather than the two favorites at this point, 80% and 90%. I am basically optimistic that most of the voting in such a process will be good-faith and reasonably informed, but even assuming this, we need to think about how it could all go wrong. Many people will vote against an admin even when that admin is operating, arguably, within the range of acceptable admin behaviors, as a way of pushing back against the current range of acceptable behaviors. That could get us to 50% quickly, and if you then add in all the votes from User:ImaVandal and friends who didn't like getting blocked, it's quite conceivable that one day we'll get a desysopping percentage of 82% for someone who really shouldn't be desysopped. If that happens, and whoever is making the call says that they're desysopping anyway because 82% is above the discretionary range, then it would have been better if there were no such desysopping process in place, because that's going to have a very unfortunate chilling effect on admins. OTOH, it's also easy to see how not desysopping at 88% could be a disaster; it could give the impression that this process is just security theater, the illusion of a process that engages the community without any real responsiveness to community input. My hope is that both sides of this argument can be prodded to offer some grudging acknowledgment of the potential downsides in both directions, and we can arrive at a "least worst" compromise. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually why I said "None" in my vote there. I really think that this will turn into an issue, if not right away, certainly eventually. We shouldn't be short sited about this, since we'll all be forced to live with this process for a long time if it's ever accepted.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, we want to have this discussion before it goes into effect ... actually, before it gets to a wider vote. Re-reading, I want to be clear that I'm not predicting disaster, at least not if crats are making the call (individually or jointly), because they deal with and talk about these kinds of issues a lot, and I'm confident they'll weight some arguments appropriately and see campaigns for what they are. The problems to avoid come in if either their hands are tied by too low a discretionary range, or by the appearance of instructions not to desysop when it appears there's an overwhelming vote in that direction. (Btw, just learned about the WP:DRAMAOUT, I'll come back to this on Friday.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Further conversation[edit]

(comments moved here from under the poll)

  • Not another poll!!!!!!' Jehochman Brrr 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not another childish admin!!!!!! No!!!!!!! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Drop it, Matt. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Good advice again, I will. Now the page is looking less daunting, I'm going to take the time tonight to inform all the previous voters. How many will take it up who knows. It's hardly the end of the world whatever happens with it, but it could just be that it turns out worthwhile. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Railroaded[edit]

  • I can't help but feel this process is being railroaded. From beginning to end, people voicing opposition have been treated with disdain, frequently insulted, and their words treated as having no effect, "unofficial" and more. Personally, I don't really care. But, to the supporters of this proposal, you had better start understanding the undermining effect these actions are having or you will get a very rude awakening when you attempt to actually put this RfC to the public. You might think you have the final word here, but you won't in the public fora. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
That is just not fair at all, and you have constantly had your say. I'd appreciate it if all comments are in the designated sections. Matt Lewis (talk)
  • Actually, it's quite fair. And you just proved my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I trust the Wiki-wide community & will abide by its final word on the whole matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Bingo to Hammersoft: glad that someone had the nerve to say it. Durova403 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously people see courage in different ways Durova. I'll assume that means you agree to the way he's been adding new sections for each of his 'points' along the way, too. I suggest you read the later discussions - you will see that this poll was set up because opinion was needed on matters. There was not enough consensus for the push to RfC. Do you not want people to give their opinions? Please leave discussion in the friendly place designed for the job. We don't want to confuse matters futher - do we? Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think admins who are willing to take the hard decisions are quite popular and are likely to find support when they mess up more than the play-it-safe admins. Sole Soul (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And I'm still saying drop it Matt. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know that "Railroaded" is really accurate (or fair, really), but I agree with the basic sentiment that this has been problematic. It been way over-structured, and far too poll oriented, right from the get go. As things stand, I simply won't support it as any sort of policy or guideline until those who are "running this" let go a bit and allow some actual discussion to turn into real consensus driven development.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Before the perception of "running this" settles in too far through repetition of the meme, Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ provides links to what has been done so far, by way of "consensus driven development". I hope editors will AGF that the polling and structure and so forth is actually intended to bring in community input. Whether it has ended up instead as too-long-didn't-read is another matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Heya Tryptofish. To be clear, I don't blame you specifically, or anyone else for that matter, about the process failings that I perceive with this. I understand completely the history here, and how and why that seemingly necessitated the general approach taken at the start of this. There probably was not means to begin the process of creating this proposed new policy without the additional structure which was placed upon it, but I'd submit to yourself and others who are vested in shepherding this to completion that there's likely no means to finish the process without setting some of that structure aside and allowing more common discussion oriented decision making to occur. ...or not, who know, I could easily be completely wrong. That's at least an explaination of my view, however.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    But where was everyone after Jan 4th? This poll was essential in getting people back into this - it was rolling towards the community RFC because the consensus group that wanted to do it was essentially a small one. My worry was that a number of people anti CDA were sitting back because they knew they could easily fail it. But a lot of people simply weren't paying attention at this point too. A 'show of hands' (though polls on WIkipedia can be over-used admittedly) is an essential part of any over-crowded semi-anarchic institution, which is what Wikipedia simply is. Stonewalling (and bloating) tactics, and the various more subtle forms of trolling are far more damaging to Wikipedia than intelligently-made polls, which are great at showing what people want.
    Change on Wikipedia simply cannot be smooth - it's too big and too full of different classes and motivations. Sometimes complaints about matters like this developing CDA proposal are really just churlish - it is simply illogical to expect things like CDA to develop perfectly. Why not keep being positive about your positon, rather than being sarcastic and cynical? It far is too easy to pick at holes (long pages, occasional polls etc), and to say 'groups' are to blame for things you don't like, and to kind-of 'personalise' general things (ie "you've been doing this and this" etc). WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding CDA in general, would cover a quite a lot of complaints I've seen regarding this poll. This poll is not 'anti' consensus-building, it is an essential part of moving towards it, at this particular moment in time. It is also building knowledge on the subject, and not everyone is as 'tired' of the subject as others. These areas on Wikiedia are always mostly populated by rather dry (if quippy) admin who can easily find them, and are easily canvased, being admin. Having some new blood (even from the smelly 'mob' - if any new editors actually manage to find this place) is no bad thing at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Matt, I'm glad now about the feedback we are getting from this poll, so I have to say you were right to push for it. But I'm going to say, again, that you should drop this thread. You don't need to criticize those who disagree with you. They can make up their own minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not really criticising Ohms law, and I don't generally mind being disagreed with, I just like to correct things I think are unfair (fleshed out with a couple of reasons). In effect, I'm standing up for the work you and others have done. I will try and drop this thread though. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks[edit]

  • No thanks, voiced with the confident prediction that "no thanks" will be interpreted, as at every stage in the process as far as I can tell, as silent assent to whichever minority view happens to gain the largest minority. Cynical? You bet. I stopped following this when it was obvious that CDA lacked consensus, apparently that lack of consensus has been misused as a way of proceeding with only the input of those who support the proposal. It has too much potential to be hijacked - WP:PITCHFORKS would be the appropriate shortcut. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    For me, I just don't get why WP awards adminship to editors as a reward for being good (and great!) article editors, when most of the time we need admins who will not edit articles at all but will roll up the sleeves and clean up, etc. If we reward article editors, it's no wonder we end up with rows (involving content) with admins involved. In an ideal situation, admins wouldn't have an opinion on content. Right? --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    You've made a good point. There are plenty of alternatives to the current Cult of Adminship of course, although the masses are told to ignore all such heresies. Adminship is sold as "a mop and a bucket" (utterly fallaciously), but perhaps it really should be just that? An admin can far too easily wheel war over content (with no other 'authority' caring less), let alone protect articles and harass editors where he/she sees 'fit'. When admin are involved with content, they are simply at their worst. In fact, I'd say that the majority of admin who flatly oppose CDA have their minds on at least one particular topic, where they are Right, and the 'mob' are often simply wrong. The lack of respect admin have for editors at times is even worse than editors have for admin (yes, actually worse). Arbcom keep saying "content" is out of their remit - maybe it should be out of the Administrator's too. Personally though, I'd break up admin into different jobs - being able to do so much is simply more than they can deal with. After all, who the hell are they anyway?? Too many of them are slippery Poloniuses - but that's how you get the Invite to the club. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New idea[edit]

All established users given the tools to temporarily desysop disruptive admins? I just got a link to here even though I am not active in the discussion. Just brainstorming but an idea never proposed. Administrators can block people but they, themselves, have some limited immunity to being blocked by Wikipedia custom. Many, many administrators are reasonable but there are a few often mentioned in noticeboards who seem to be in the middle of trouble.
Would there be any support for temporary 1 week de-sysop of administrators which could be done by any established user a maximum of twice per year (admin could only be de-sysoped this way 2 times per year). If done, these user must have a good reason (make that pretty damn good reason) to do so or be subjected to 1 week blocks for misuse of the user tools. Hopefully, this option would be used rarely and only in the case of "Administrator, you are doing a very poor job specifically with these (specify) actions and use the one week de-sysop to reconsider and come back re-freshed and hopefully the need for further action, such as a RFC, will be avoided upon returning." Remember that this is a brainstorming proposal, not a final proposal. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you've actually come up with a variation that no one else has come up with so far, which is really saying something, considering how many different versions we've discussed! The thinking here has been that Jimbo and ArbCom can handle temporary desysops, and that a community-wide process might be too lengthy to be able to handle that in a timely manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When?[edit]

I sorta lost the proposed 'time-frame' of all of this. If the CDA is presented to the entire Wiki community, on what date shall it be? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the conversation currently here. The 'Motion to Close' the entire CDA proposal (a link is at the top of the page) failed two votes to one, so the people who simply don't want a CDA proposal being put to RfA can't effectively stop it now for that reason alone. Providing consensus is found for a form of CDA that people can accept voting for (whether for or against) the RfA will hopefully go to the public 'sooner rather than later' - but not untill every element of it has at least been covered of course, hopefully in some detail. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Prior to the latest poll there was an intention to commence on 25th Jan. I'd say that there is still a realistic possibility of an RfC happening in January, but it may stray into early February. It will be widely advertised of course. Ben MacDui 19:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the likelihood of being ready in January is rapidly shrinking. And that's just fine. It's not important to start in January, not important at all. It is important to get everything worked out as thoughtfully as possible, before entering into the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, just needed a reminder, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As the proposer of the original January 25 start date for the RfC, I'm with Ben on this. I don't think the poll has done much but muddy the water, frankly, and mobilize opposition. Since there are obviously those that think 70/80 is either too high or too low, I feel it is critical that we set 70/80 as the standard. To repeat: I urge we set the standards to deadmin on a Cda !vote at roughly 70/80, subject to bureaucrat review, the same as it takes to "make" an admistrator. I deem it unwise to continue to debate on that or anything else in the Cda proposal much further, as it further aggravates those impatient with the lengthy delays in presenting the issue to the community. To accomodate those who feel strongly about a final period of discussion I propose making the RfC start date Friday, January 29, 2010. Jusdafax 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with almost all of that. First of all, I have to admit that the poll has actually been very helpful in clearing some things up, and if used correctly, will improve the likelihood of community acceptance of the final proposal. I'm not anywhere near to being ready to agree to Jan. 29, and I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to set that date now. We need to take in the results of the poll, and we will need time to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume (of course) whichever date is selected, editors will be notified. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That's essential. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And I just as respectfully disagree with your disagreement above, Trypto. Take in what results? There is no support for the two-phase stuff, and as I say some want less than 70/80, some want more. Compromise at 70/80, same as a Rfa, and let's move forward with the RfC. Let's not bog down any further, because your warnings to "drop" uncivil language, hostile posturing, etc. have gone unheeded, and loose cannon flamebait creates the perception that Cda proponents are manners-challenged, which until recently was not the case. Set the RfC starting date for a week from today, please. Jusdafax 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Taking editors working on this project as a group, I think it (perception of manners problems) is still not the case. And the biggest take-home message of your comment (I believe) is that calm examination of editors' views on the merits is the best way to gain community support for the eventual proposal. Part 4 of the poll allowed editors who claimed we weren't listening to them to be heard. We know more now about what arguments to anticipate. And some useful improvements may come of it, if we give it the needed time. I agree with you that part 3 of the poll was a huge waste of time. As for parts 1 and 2, yes, they do appear to be coming to something close to a 50-50 split. But we should take the time to go through them carefully, and determine what editors are telling us. That group consensus trumps your individual views, however strongly-felt. And there are nuances that we should work into the final document, I'm very sure. We've always felt that these "percentages" are the things we most need to "get right", if the proposal is to succeed, so let's get it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we'll look at the data very carefully when the poll has finished. We can present the data in different ways, and discuss validity.
Surely the idea of a two-phase poll had to be brought up and discussed earlier, as effectively this finalisation poll became the 'first phase' (ie "what are the favoured baseline percentages?") - as nobody present wanted to ask two phases at the RfC! But the question had to be asked. I added a VOTE 2 on the top-pecentage 'threshold', as I thought it was bound to keep coming up in the 'baseline' vote, and we may as well ask as much as we can that is relevant.
The first criticism of the poll after it opened, was by Jehochman, who suggested that we need to ask the public if they actually want a CDA at the RfC. That is why I added VOTE 3 to the poll (after it actually started) - to see if people would accept the idea of a two-phase poll. It appeased a tough critic (the opener of the Motion to Close) and has clearly shown that there is little desire for it - surely because two phases would hardly be needed if the proposal is properly settled. So VOTE 3 is not me wasting time with two phases, as this poll was effectively my original 'phase 1' baseline question!
The second quickly-appearing criticism of the poll was to ask for an 'oppose' vote - so I added that in VOTE 4, even though I had explained in the poll's intro that the RfC was (since the failed Motion to Close) the place to say "no". The VOTE 4 to oppose turned out to be a real bonus, as Trypto says, as people could really voice their concerns.
It's all been in the interaction, which is supposed to be what it's all about. If we dot every 'i' on this, the proposal will be impossible to tear down at the RfC ("this was rushed through", "x wasn't asked", "no consensus" "per" "per" "per" etc), and people will have to simply vote with the community, for or against a complete and solid proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The intention of this four-vote 'multi-poll' is to complete the working CDA proposal. This poll will run for 7 days, after which the intention is that the proposal will be finalised, and put to the community at RfC. A date is still to be set for this, however, and nothing is set in sand: we do not know how this poll will develop.

Votes 1 and 2 are important for the finalising of the CDA proposal. Vote 3 asks if you would like a two-phase proposal (with the CDA being polled in phase 2). Vote 4 is an unofficial oppose. Please note that this poll is not the place to officially oppose the idea of CDA - that can be done at the final RfC.

Background and reasons for polling

In previous polling, the CDA proposal that had the most support was 5.4 (essentially, that Bureaucrats look for consensus within a 70% to 80% "rule of thumb" margin). Amongst those who support proposing a CDA proposal to the community, there is a consensus is that we utilise 5.4. (The finalised CDA will be proposed at an eventual RfC). However, the full support for 5.4 is not clear, especially on using 70% as the 'baseline' percentage. Percentage issues were posed by people who supported and opposed the principle of 5.4, and the most-suggested amendment (which came from the those in support of it) was to change the baseline to 60%. Also, since January 4, it has been suggested that another 'phase' is needed at this 'Draft RfC' stage, to gather more information from people, and to facilitate the finalisation of the proposal. This poll will perhaps constitute the final phase.

THIS POLL OFFICIALLY STARTED AT 23:00, 15 JANUARY 2010 (UTC) and WILL END AT NOON GMT ON SUNDAY 24th JANUARY 2010.

Just a question: when will we end the poll? Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already stated "7 days" above (intending that to be from the 15th, at 23:00), but how about 7 days from the time of your vote on the 16th below? You are the second vote after me, and the poll wasn't accepted until then. I didn't actually advertise the poll until the 18th (to everyone who had previously contributed, and the relevant noticeboards), as I put it up as quickly as I could in response to a new section proposing a final date for running with what we had. (I'd already raised the need to run this poll, of course). Unfortunately I started it before I properly tidied and archived what was then quite a long and confusing page - which I felt was essential before advertising it properly. I think it is telling that the poll didn't really take off until I did inform people of it. I'm sure that happened because a lot of people had taken their eyes off the latter stages of this page in early Jan, largely because Christmas/New Year was not the ideal time for the previous phase to end.
I'd be happy with the close date being 7 days from the 16th, although I don't think it will damage anything if it was 7 days from the 18th either - but I expect that might raise complaints. I'm aware of some people's impatience for the final RfC, but I worry very much about it also. We some need time to absorb all the data, and to address and discuss any new questions that have been raised since the poll. Consensus, of course, isn't merely the vote, and in my opinion you can't really call anything consensus if there are genuine 'loose ends' people want to address. I think when everything raised is at least discussed, then consensus can be pretty-easily discussed, and any objectors will be far more likely record their objection to the final RfC, rather than actually step in and prevent it (which I think I and others would have done if such a small group in only partial agreement tried to run with 5.4 as it stood). Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I don't feel strongly about a date certain, just wanted to know. And you did say 7 days, so I guess I myself did a tl;dr! (smile) So 7 days from the 16th would be the 23rd, and 7 days from the 18th would be the 25th. Anything in that range would work, I think, with the very important understanding that, as you point out, there absolutely must be a thoughtful interpretation of the poll results, not just !vote counting, and then, there will have to be decisions about how to word the final proposal before going live with the community RfC. I, too, feel strongly about that. I guess it would be good if someone (not me) would set an end time for this poll and announce it, so people know what to expect. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It is implicit in the above that it is the 22nd at 23:00 and it should be explicit if that is to be modified. Perhaps the 23rd at 22:00 as being 7 days from the second vote - the numbers participating have fallen off a lot now. As it is absurd to be amending it after the presumed expiry date I will change it to that at 19:00 tonite unless it is otherwise amended by then. I agree the analysis needs to be careful, although unless something changes significantly I can only think of one solution that would adequately cover the complexity. Ben MacDui 09:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be good with that, although another (perhaps even better) option is to see it starting from 9pm on the 17th (from the first vote that wasn't involved in discussing the poll beforehand). Regarding the 'tailing off' element, that would take it closer to the end of the weekend (24th at 21:00 UTC, 9pm Sunday UK time), which may or may not bring it to more people. That would be closer to maxing the '7 days', though I wouldn't make it my call. There seems to be much less of a consensus on finalising the process sometime in January now (though it would be great if we still could), than there was when I picked the poll dates. The 31st of Jan is actually the following Sunday, UK time, if you wanted a 'pencilled in' date we could use if consensus was apparent before that date - but no pushing things, I agree, and there are fiddly things to settle too, as tryptofish says. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ever the pragmatist, as you can see I've compromised between the two. This is a bit more than the 7 days from the 2nd vote but allows editors in Europe and the US some time at the weekend to begin the analysis. Ben MacDui 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, that's probably better again. esp if someone wants to pencil the 31st (I'm not personally too bothered about that - I think we are on our way now to offering something we can all sit down to vote on). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 1[edit]

Do you prefer a 'baseline' percentage of; 50%, 60%, 66%, 70% or 75%?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will need to see this 'baseline' percentage in favor of desysoping reached before they consider whether the Administrator standing under CDA should be de-sysoped.

Please give a single-value second preference if you can, in the format; "75 (70) - signed", or "66 (60 and 50) - signed" etc.

  • 60 (50 and 66) Adding late comment - Note that 50 editors must 'support' the CDA for it to be looked at by the Bureaucrats, and there are plenty of other safeguards too, such as reqiring 10 good-standing editors to open a CDA case, and that "Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page.". In my opinion, a baseline lower than 70% is therefore required. 70% means something different for RFA's (which are optimistic things, not negative ones). CDA is something different entirely, and the higher baseline figure is the easier one to game (and prevent the CDA from happening). Logically the baseline needs to lower rather than higher, and Bureaucrats will be able to take much into account. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70. 60 would also be fine with me, but I think 70 will be more acceptable to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) because two-thirds should be that minimum requirement to reverse established consensus. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60) - an admin who has the support of less than 50% of voters does not have enough support to remain an admin. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) RP459 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) Admins are asked to make decisions which may prove unpopular. Those seeking to desysop need to demonstrate they carry the community behind them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 (50) An administrator should have the strong support of the community to act on their behalf. If a CDA reached a baseline of 60% of the community for de-sysoping the administrator, everyone should concerned about that administrator, and it's time for bureaucracy to weigh what is going on with that administrator and their use of the bit. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (60) I'd say 66% based on the fact that ​23 is generally recognized as decisive.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) - a desysop vote will almost certainly occur after some big, negative event that will overshadow much of an admin's actual history; a higher baseline will help to compensate for that. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70. While 50 is the "true" baseline for me, in that if exactly half of wikipedia lacks confidence in you, you don't have our confidence. But for practical purposes-- maximizing the chances this passes, decreasing admin stress by fruitless disputes, vote-stacking, etc, it's probably best to start out at 70%. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 Per Wehwalt. I'd consider dropping this lower if there's a minimum total vote threshold, or once a track record of sufficient involvement and good discussion has evolved, but I don't want to see admins needing to garner large social networks of supporters against the inevitable dissatisfied individuals. Let's start high, and work down, rather than starting too low and risking factional politics taking out good admins. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) Willking1979 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70Jake Wartenberg 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66 75) keep the whole situation stable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 75. JClemens makes an excellent point in 75's favor. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) With all the opposition, I don't think there's any chance of getting almost everyone on board with a number lower than 75, and it's important to get almost everyone on board, otherwise these desysopping votes will be mostly about the process, which would be unfair to the admin being reviewed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (66) per others about the 2/3 ration or 2 support for every 1 oppose.--v/r - TP 03:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 per Jclemens. Hordaland (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 seems good, but I think Bureaucrat discretion is good to incorporate so that it's not just a vote. The weight of the arguments should be weighed. Adminship is no big deal, so if more than 50% of commenters are concerned there are serious issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60%. Given the threshold of support needed to become a sysop, one could argue that 30% would be sufficient. However, given the selection bias of opining editors, 60% seems about right. Bongomatic 04:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70%. As I discussed earlier, it only is logical to come close to mirroring an RFA approval. 70% to change the status quo. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) As per Mr.Z-man and Shirik. — SpikeToronto 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 as per JClemens. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 (70) ╟─TreasuryTagcabinet─╢ 08:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60) - 50% is appropriate for initial consideration. Leaky Caldron 09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60% given that at least 50 people must participate, I don't see much chance of a small group taking out an admin. Pcap ping 09:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Two-thirds majority (a supermajority) of 66.66%. 60% with a minimum number of participants. Tony (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) - 70% is required to receive adminship, a similar amount should be required to lose it. At a bare minimum 2/3 should be required to show true concensus on the issue. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) Stifle (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70-75 Crat discretion range. Mostly per Jclemens, also this site is too open to trolls and double !voting by sockpuppets for a simple majority to work. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 Two thirds is more than enough to be official. That said, I cannot see how an admin could continue if 50 percent of the community has lost the confidence in him/her. Sole Soul (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (70) with a minimum of 50 valid votes. MLauba (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 should be fine for me, with a minimum of 50 !voters. Pmlineditor  11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60) Lambanog (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (70) 2/3 is a good balance between the value of community trust and the abuse of axe-grinders. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) There's no good reason why an admin who still has the trust of the community should receive less than 70% of its support. As noted, a bare two-thirds would be a minimum, if we do indeed have a required 50-vote minimum as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 which is the counterpart of what is needed to pass. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (70) and a minimum of 50 participants. You need to have a super majority to desysop. I believe this should be enough of a safeguard. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (70). Two thirds seems like a solid number, but 70% might fair better. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 (66). --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose De-admining should not be based on a vote, it should be based on an objective analysis of evidence applied to policy and community expectation. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, what is truly a vote is what ArbCom members do when they decide to de-admin someone. Sole Soul (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering there is currently a "poll" to decide what the voting threshold is, I would say this has very little to do with consensus. Since when do we set a percentage threshold for consensus? Where is the part that arbcom does where evidence is examined for its merit? How does this proposed poll/threshold idea deal with ax grinders and those who lack basis for their opinions? Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You said "De-admining should not be based on a vote", this poll will not decide to de-admin anyone nor decide the voting threshold. The poll is conducted to give an indication of what option has the best chance to succeed when the decision time comes. If CDA is approved there expected to be a part that examine evidence for its merit, but after that there must be also a part where everyone "vote", this what will happen in the CDA and this happens now in the ArbCom. The difference is that the CDA decision will be based on consensus, whereas the ArbCom decisions are based on simple majority. Sole Soul (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (60) Chillum - surely that ship has sailed? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Making decisions based off of evidence applied to policy instead of voting? I certainly hope that ship has not sailed. This proposed solution has only gained favor when compared to less favorable solutions, I don't think that ship has sailed at all. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60): If you think about it 50% of unsatisfied wikipedians is a large amount. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 (70) it must be more than a simple majority to prevent desysop being too easy (admin's do need to make unpopular calls occasionally). However, it doesn't have to be as strict as the RFA where standards for what defines consensus is intentionally high to prevent abuse of the sysop bit. Rami R 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 (70) IMHO, we must guard against possible emotionalism, when an administrator is being considering for 'removal from administratorship'. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (70) - Two-thirds seems decisive enough. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Blanket oppose See below. Durova403 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66. If a supermajority of the participating community not only lacks faith in the admin but actively feels they should not be an admin, the bit should go. Higher numbers seem to operationally let admins explicitly, actively, and clearly opposed by a supermajority of the community retain the bit, which seems almost farcical to me. I'd prefer a substantially lower number, but only with a large minimum total voters requirement and/or other safeguards against reflexive pile-ons and other forms of system gaming. Vassyana (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70% (75%) - admins can become highly unpopular for reasons unconnected with any kind of misconduct. A higher level here ensures this process can be introduced to handle routine cases where the matter is clear, but keeps it less easy to "railroad" where there are groups of editors with a grudge or the matter is contentious. In other words, when it's a simple case this process will work and where there are doubts there is recourse to RFAR. Over time, we will see how this process works and whether the admins it's used on genuinely need desysopping or are merely unpopular (offended the wrong person, etc). We can loosen the criteria in a year or so if it's working. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70% - This seems like a fair number to me, but I think there should be an understanding that just like RfA and RfB, the percentage that determines a "consensus" may change over time and should be allowed to change as the community's standards change. RfA requires a higher number of supporters than it used to, and the standards have become stricter, just as RfB has recently lowered the bar a little bit. I don't want a procedure where a year from now people are Wikilawyering about percentages when a CDA has concluded one way or the other. -- Atama 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50% (60%) per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66% (50%) Two-thirds seems more reasonable, but let's face it, if half of the community doesn't agree with what you're doing, then there's a problem, isn't there? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (50 and 60) Unomi (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60) Realistically with a minimum substantial number of voters, the lower number should suffice. If an admin doesn't have at least 50% support, they should go. Without a minimum, the higher number adds a slight safety margin. --HighKing (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose. If we have a problem with admins not wanting to take on the difficult tasks, this is a good way to discourage more of them. Also, it an admin is doing a good job in those tasks, but not as a general editor, they can still loose their adminship for unrelated actions with processes like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66% Seems about right. Leaders may govern only with the consent of the governed. We aren't taking away someone's right to life or liberty here; just some special privileges, responsibilities, and police powers that were granted by the community in the first place. If two out of three members of the community now want to revoke those privileges, that seems best for the orderly operation of Wikipedia; not too chilling of an effect on our good volunteer admins, and a reasonable remedy for the rank & file who needlessly suffer under bad admins. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75% (or 66%). Better to keep it to low fractional denominators for simplicity. If an admin is a problem they'll get reach 75% easily. If they're not a problem, they won't. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 If more than half of all editors who bother to comment have a problem, then IMO there is a problem. BigDunc 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 Seventy seems too high. If there is <41% support for continued service, there is enough concern to force the issue. Sswonk (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 If you can't hit >50% supporting your continued adminship the issue is clear.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 but any number among the choices works for me. Chutznik (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (75), with the understanding that the percentages serve as rules of thumb and do not replace the need for bureaucrats to evaluate consensus and apply judgment. –Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 (70) - overwhelming support should be required to desysop. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) - This is about what we do at RfA. I feel the percentages should be equivalent. Tavix |  Talk  00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 75 per JClemens, with a minimum participation of 100 editors as the only people who should be up for this are those who would have at least 100 people participating due to the severity of what they did. If they have erred enough to have a community desysop discussion, the number of participants needs to be significant. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66% (50%) As per user:Dabomb87's reasoning. ---kilbad (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 as a good indicator of consensus and easy to determine. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (low)- Crats should be encouraged to consider - and 'consider' is the key word here - very early on whether there is a problem - remember that you need 75% support to getting elected. As this amounts to a vote of confidence, it's already a very strong warning sign if the given admin's support falls to 50%. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) Polargeo (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60 (70)) - We need this regardless, but lower is better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 (65) Ben MacDui 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (65) --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60% If more than half support then the subject is doing something seriously wrong, and the case should be looked at. After all, an oppose rate of 60% would lead to a failed RfA. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 (70) - I believe the 'crats should have plenty of leeway, and 60% support seems a reasonable starting point, particularly if there is a minimum number in support of removal required as well. 70% is second choice as mirroring RfA. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 (66) - as administrators are frequently tasked to make unpopular decisions, anything lower than this would be unwise. JBsupreme (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 (60) Any administrator who cannot maintain the majority support of the community clearly does not enjoy the community's trust. The threshold for participation is great enough to prevent small cabals from hijacking the process. RayTalk 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70% as a guideline CDA should be a reverse RfA, and it takes consensus to change the status quo. Crats should have discretion as to what constitutes consensus. --Thinboy00 @002, i.e. 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 I go for 60% as long as the discussion is taken into account. Angryapathy (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 60 and the defrocked admin should have the right to appeal to ArbCom, within a reasonable time frame.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose outright see below, not threshold should be attached without a time frame. Gnangarra 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50Bility (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50 is more than enough. — Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50. If this many people think an admin should be de-admined, that's good enough for me. -- Rico 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 66 (60). In practice something like 50 is the real baseline, but setting it at 66 will probably be enough of a safeguard against rushes to judgement and frivolous CDAs. Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 50. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 2[edit]

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

  • 90 (None) - Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 And I find 90 completely unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None Bureaucrats can determine consensus as it is, and there is no need for an automatic number. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None - this should be left to bureaucrat discretion. I don't think an automatic de-sysop threshold is needed or a good idea. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 tempers can flare but at 90% there is consensus. RP459 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Per RP459. This should not be easy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Let's get real, 80% is probably good, but at 90%, the administrator should just resign, and if they don't it's time for a bureaucrat to act on the will of the community. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None Leave this to individual discretion. Unline mandatory "no-action" decisions, mandatory "do something" is almost universally a bad idea.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 - If 90% of the community thinks that someone should be desysopped, I can't imagine any situation where the arguments by the remaining 10% could be so strong as to override it; at least nothing that wouldn't be covered by other rules. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 - This should not be something that is done lightly. -DJSasso (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 would definitely be consensus, provided we got reasonably representative sampling of the community. So make sure a 'crat or someone can do a sanity check on it. Any percentage that had no discretion whatsoever would probably kill the proposal. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 per everyone above, but IP69 said it best. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Willking1979 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 should be hard, but overwhelming consensus should rule. Bureaucrats should be able to discount SPA and sock votes though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90. 75 % to get the mop, 90 % to get it taken away. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90. Me too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 85, and after seeing the discussions, I feel strongly that some kind of discussion leading to compromise is important. More above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) tweaked
  • 80 If 75% gets the mop, 75% should get it taken away.--v/r - TP 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 Obviously. If 80% support deasminship that is an overwhelming consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% Mirror the terms of an RFA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 As per TP(aris00ap) and Shirik. — SpikeToronto 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80Juliancolton | Talk 06:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 (none) ╟─TreasuryTagconstablewick─╢ 08:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% Leaky Caldron 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80%. Pcap ping 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70–80% but ultimate latitude given to 'crat judgement, please. Minimum 75 participants, per Ohconfucius. Tony (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90% (or None) If an admin can't get more than 10% support, then they must be doing something way wrong - even allowing for a large amount of disgruntled editors, 90% would mean that even respected editors/admins consider that the admin needs to go. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Stifle (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Pmlineditor  11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 or none. 90 is a joke. Sole Soul (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 or none. Per Sole Soul. Lambanog (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None I trust in the 'Crats. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None. This is too important for some well-meaning admin to WP:SNOW close, only to stoke the drama. We need to be able to trust the bureaucrats. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80. If 80% of the community think the admin is doing such a poor job that desysopping is in order, there is serious trouble. 90% is too high, as a closely knit clique who support the inappropriate admin actions will be able to block the desysopping. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 (none) if only 10% of the participants agree that someone should remain a sysop there must be something to it but as a second choice let the bureaucrats decide if there is a consensus. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 mirroring the RfA. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose De-admining should not be based on a vote, it should be based on an objective analysis of evidence applied to policy and community expectation. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80: An automatic de-sysopping system stops favouritism etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None (80) - I think we can trust the bureaucrats on this one. Rami R 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 (None) - Such a high threshold is sufficiant, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None (90) - I think the bureaucrats' judgment should be trusted. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Blanket oppose See below. Durova403 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None. We should set the bar and leave it at that. Vassyana (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90% (none) - see comment above. Given that contentious cases can still be referred to RFAR, the hurdle should be sufficiently high to prevent cliques or "friends of offended editors" railroading the process. A level where "desysopping by vote" will become nearly effectively automatic with little option for real recourse or appeal (I would not count on Arbcom to overturn a formal community decision) would need to be very high indeed. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 --HighKing (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While better then Vote 1, it does not fix the basic problem. If we have a problem with admins not wanting to take on the difficult tasks, this is a good way to discourage more of them. Also, it an admin is doing a good job in those tasks, but not as a general editor, they can still loose their adminship for unrelated actions with processes like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% Greg L (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90% In fairness, snow is snow. I think this is unnecessary but no harm to have anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% BigDunc 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 Leaves practically no room for doubt. Sswonk (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None as hopefully unneeded. If the crats need a rule to take action at 80% or imho even lower we need to be recalling the crats not giving them more rules.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 100% - I oppose "automatic" de-sysops based on a percentage, since that turns bureaucrats from evaluators of consensus to calculators. If we were to treat the percentages as rules of thumb, then I would say 80%. However, as the poll question is worded, I stand by my "100%". –Black Falcon (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 - I don't want an "automatic number" to be too low, and I hope that this number excludes frivolous "votes" (I meant to exclude the ! there). But I don't have a problem with there being an upper threshold. -- Atama 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90. the consensus should be as strong as possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None Consensus should determine that, not a threshold. This is for a 'crat to determine. Tavix |  Talk  00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None as I think having a minimum threshold is enough. Beyond that, I think a determination of consensus is best. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None - I also agree that having the minimum threshold is enough. ---kilbad (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None The bureaucrat should be the judge of consensus and not mechanically hew to any particular percentage. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None (low) - Crats should decide what consensus is - generally interpreted to be two-thirds. Remember that you need 75% support to getting elected, having it taken away when support falls to 20% (ie 80% voting to remove) makes no sense at all. However, I agree that there should be a minimum number of votes (maybe 75?) to safeguard against possible manipulation. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None I guess. You should have asked if I wanted it 10 percent above the numbers I preferred above, which I do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% Ben MacDui 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80 (none) --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80% ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90 (None) - I would prefer to give 'crats plenty of leeway though anything above 90% leaves no room for doubt that a de-sysop would be appropriate, particularly if there is a minimum number in support of removal required. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None The crats should have discretion in bizarre cases. I don't like hard-and-fast rules. But if I were to give an automatic one, it'd be closer to 60, excepting exceptional cases. RayTalk 22:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None this sounds like a zero intelligence policy. --Thinboy00 @004, i.e. 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80, I guess If truly 80% of the community vote for desysop, then they should be removed. That's kind of a no-brainer. What would be the point of even having a bureaucrat involved if they can't make a decison based on an 80% precentage? Angryapathy (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None The crats are in many ways less fickle and less biased (just my opinion) and less likely to act rashly, lets leave it up to them. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose the wording of this dosnt set a time period in relation to meeting the threshhold even a 100% is achieved at a one point in the discussion. Gnangarra 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 90Bility (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80, but I would prefer 70. - Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 80. 4 out of 5 people are enough. It's hard to get that many people to agree on what time it is. -- Rico 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 70 or none at all. In practice people are reluctant to oppose in RfAs and probably will be even more reluctant in voting to desysop. I suspect that even in pretty obvious cases it would be hard to get to 70 or even to 50. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • None per Nsk92. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 3[edit]

Would you support a two-phase poll at RfC?

The first phase would ask a question on whether the CDA is wanted or not. This could be phrased in a number of ways and, should the support here show there is sufficient desire for it, would be decided on after this poll. The second phase (if the RfC doesn't stop at phase one) would be the decided-upon CDA proposal.

Please vote "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral".

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: This question is just about having a two-phase CDA poll at RfC - please ammend any comments that assumed this question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process.

  • Support Adding late comment:(per Jehochman's suggestion for this option). If it is supported, then it can't do any harm! Matt Lewis (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:KISS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose After months of this process, a full process should be offered for discussion in a single RFC. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this may as well be asked in a single RfC, with one of the options being 'I oppose all forms of CDA'. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose RP459 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose though there should be a built in delay, say 72 hours to allow the admin to build his case, and there should be a way to obtain a reasonable postponement if RL considerations interfere (perhaps have a crat schedule the RfDA).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's like joke RfA's: it's usually apparent when there's no need to participate. If the CDA is not wanted, that will be evident. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose People are intelligent enough to make generally reasonable determinations about things like this.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    I feel the same as Mr.Z-man, regarding the clarification.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - has the potential to waste twice as much time and runs the risk of poisoning the well for the actual process. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Its been pointed out that the question was referring to the poll to create a CDA system, not the system itself, but I would still oppose that for similar reasons. Mr.Z-man 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mr.Z-man. JamieS93 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Willking1979 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose keep it simpler Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Me too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose K.I.S.S. Even with the clarification, my !vote stands--v/r - TP 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally unnecessary, as above. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adds too much complexity: KISS. — SpikeToronto 05:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep it classy simple. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose—twice as much drama and time-wasting. Tony (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Confirming Oppose following addendum. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Too much bureaucracy, anyone? Stifle (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Confirming oppose. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lambanog (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: more complication is not good, and offers the opportunity for abuse and bad feelings. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (note: after being notified on my talk page that I misinterperated the proposal, I struck out part of my rationale, but I still oppose the proposal as worded with clarification.)
  • Oppose. The entire point of the proposal is to simplify the process. This would not do that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This kind of bureaucracy was tried on regular RFAs and failed. It is better to let people voice the "mattering" opinion at once. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has gone on long enough this has already had one try at closing it down, adding another !vote to this is not helpful. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just more bureaucracy for the sake of it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Lets get this done. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Rami R 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I've no problems with that. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mr. Z. Pmlineditor  16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an unnecessary time sink. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Our system is flawed, but mob rule is not the solution. Durova403 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We'll have enough bureaucracy. We don't need more red tape. A prerequisite for an admin conduct RfC would be wise though. People should be pursuing dispute resolution before jumping to this option. Vassyana (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose How about a greater percentage of our time actually editing articles and less time spent on Wikidrama? Greg L (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Phase one has already been worked through during this process. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose An extra layer of drama. BigDunc 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per what BigDunc just wrote. Sswonk (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Don't drag this out any longer than it has to be. -- Atama 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support an easy fix to a flawed system. Tavix |  Talk  00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - based on the principle of KISS. ---kilbad (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose neither necessary nor helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose messy Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Poorly worded, but let's have the least amount of polls on CDA as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Didn't we already go through that?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tryptofish and WP:KISS ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see the need for an extra layer of polling. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportBility (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, additional layers not required - Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too complicated. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One phase is plenty. Cla68 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 4[edit]

Oppose CDA (unoffical)

If you wish to voice your opinion here by voting "Oppose" to CDA in general, you may do so, but it will not be binding. A Motion to Close was recently polled, and it failed 2:1. The opportunity to oppose properly will be at the final RfC.

Please vote "Oppose" only if you genuinely oppose CDA (for whatever reason).

  • Oppose Hiberniantears (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ╟─TreasuryTagLord Speaker─╢ 08:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Durova403 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been reluctant to express an opinion on the CDA concept, because I am a sitting arbitrator. As the ArbCom presently handles all desysopping cases, a cynic might reason that arbitrators would resist a proposal that would take from us some of our exclusive authority—although the truth is that all desysopping cases are miserable, and I wouldn't mind never seeing another one. However, since we've been asked point-blank to post here if we oppose this concept, I feel at liberty to say that while I support community empowerment, the proposals here suffer from the usual difficulty that confronts CDA proposals: how to strike the balance between making it possible to remove admins who have lost the community's trust, and creating a process that can be gamed by a few users feeling aggrieved with an admin's recent decisions. The proposals here are as good as any I have ever seen at threading this needle, but at the cost of somewhat heavy bureaucracy among other things, and on balance I think that staying with the current system would be for the best after all. (Though this comment perhaps belongs in a different section, I also have a quibble with the "users in good standing" definition that requires that users "not be under an ArbCom sanction"; this raises a number of issues I'll be happy to address if anyone is interested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC
Yes, please address them! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Where would be best to post them without the comment getting lost? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Aagh, that's the question isn't it? I'd say just create a new section on this talk and put it there. It really would be good to get such issues fixed sooner rather than later. The way feathers are flying, I'm pretty sure the new section will get moved around on this page, but it will be read. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of really problematic admins isn't a problem, and hasn't been for a while. ArbCom does this quite liberally now when there's genuine concern. If anything, admins and editors in general need more protection against such blackmail in order to do their "job" well, not less. Why do so many people believe turning even more of Wikipedia into a Simon Cowell type popularity contest will make it better? The multiple pop contests at the expense of expertise and professionalism is actually the root of many of our biggest solvable problems. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What about making semi-problematic admin just sit down for a moment and think twice about their semi-problematic behaviour? CDA is all about making admin more accountable - in their own eyes (leading to wiser decisions, and more inter-admin trust) and in the eyes of the editors (leading to less cynical editing environments). Admin simply don't have to care about how they are perceived (and clearly, on the whole, don't), as they simply have a practical 'job for life'. CDA is not simply just about its process - it's major qualities are all implicit. Admin time and time again 'get away' with far too much - CDA can help that matter without actually being used for the things the admin get away with. It is a desperately-needed modicum of deterrent. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We already have RfCs. ArbCom look very harshly on admins who ignore valid feedback on RfCs, and indeed failure of them is sufficient basis to bring an ArbCom hearing against an admin. What the system lacks are ways of "disciplining" admins lighter than full hearing/desyppoping, quicker ways of formalising concern not dependent on social tension. This proposal doesn't address this at all, it merely doubles up the existing system at best while at worst subjecting all admins to risk of social blackmail in order (supposedly) to deal with a largely over-hyped threat from a minuscule number of admins ArbCom can already handle with its eyes closed. And incidentally, you get away with acting badly not by being an admin (if anything you're more vulnerable to censure), but by being socially powerful. That's just how you get away with it elsewhere in life. If that's really what the perceived problem is, then people are gonna be disappointed: it's quite obvious to me that community de-adminship would just make this even worse, as it increases the scope for social muscle flexing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this. The great strength of the arbitration committee over this is that the arbitration process is scrupulously fair, whereas this will always be at risk of turning into the baying mob with pitchforks and torches. This also violates the no big deal" principle. The only thing that needs to change is that if an arbitration case is accepted over abuse of administrator tools, the tools should be temporarily removed for the duration of the case (as with a suspension in a workplace misconduct case). Admin conduct sufficient to warrant desysop is relatively rare and admins are always long-term users who deserve the courtesy of a properly independent, calm and wholly evidence-based hearing. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Per others; this increases the influence of the worst aspect of our community. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the fact that a variety of bad admins have had their admin tools removed shows that this is a solution looking for a problem. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't ordinarily take the time to make general comments on Wikipolitics but as I greatly respect several of the editors who have opposed the principle of CDA above, I wanted to take the time to lay out why I strongly feel that it is needed. The conferral of adminship through RfA is based on trust. Users who have demonstrated through their edits that they are trusted members of the community receive the bit and those who haven't, either because their edits show that they don't merit it or are insufficient to show that they do, don't. RfA is, of course, not perfect, but that is how it is supposed to work. There is currently no effective way to desysop an admin who has lost community trust but has not engaged in a pattern of clear abuse. ArbCom does a good job at identifying and removing truly abusive admins, but is in a very poor position to determine the level of community trust that a user has and rarely seeks to. The resysop of GlassCobra is a clear and recent example of this problem. ArbCom resysopped after they became convinced by assurances that he/she would not engage in similar deception again. They neither asked nor determined whether GlassCobra had regained the community's trust (nor for that matter did they determine that she/he had lost it initially). I trust ArbCom, but admins must be trusted (now) by the community and that can only be assured by subjecting them to de-adminship when a consensus that that trust has been lost is demonstrated by a process similar that that outlined by the proposal under consideration here. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA will surely work mainly as a deterrent (as admin will finally be more accountable), and as another way than the ubiquitous RfC (which are far more admin-useful for the very obvious cases) for humble editors to bring a proven bad admin to light. Think of all those safeguards! CDA cannot be a proper 'referse RfA', or trust-based 're-election' - its terms won't allow it, and I think it is a con to present it as such. It cannot see bureaucrats wanting to decide on basic 'tust' either (esp starting at 70%, as it would a thankless task to judge against a CDA after that!) - they would rather go by consensus based on the evidence (ie the reasons given for the lack of trust), no doubt adding their own take on precedings too. "Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page. " I support CDA (how I see it anyway), but I think problems with the tenure and quality of amin have to be adressed via RfA: they should not be given a practical 'job for life', and the terms of their job should be much, much clearer. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And like the best disciplinary processes, we can hope that CDA will have an effect without being much used; that is, it will function as a measure of last resort. The occasional good admins who might be unfairly subjected to this process should have little to fear; people will support them. Tony (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That's why it's process creep. We already have a last resort, ArbCom. All this does is offer the potential of a howling mob as a less considered alternative. The number of desysops is tiny, if the idea is to increase this by stealth then this is a bad idea, if the idea is not to increase it then the existing process is well able to handle the current volume of cases. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I find comments like these to be highly disturbing. Calling the community a "howling mob" is way out of line. We operate based on community consensus. If you don't trust the community to form a reasonable consensus, I don't know why you are on a wiki at all. Gigs (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gigs. The community is reasoned and intelligent when it grants the mop, but when it wants to take it away suddenly it is a 'howling mob'? Take the community into perspective, if a howling mob were after an admin, then surely s/he deserves to be desysoped after many many bad decisions (I would expect it to take more than 1 bad action to build a mob that would outweigh the number of regular RfA/RfDA participants). If, as I would expect, the community is watching a RfDA as they watch RfAs, then a reasoned and intelligent community should be just as able to handle that RfDA as they could an RfA. If there is such a howling mob somewhere that likes to sway !votes, perhaps I need to find them and convince them to support my RfA next time since they are so emotionally charged and lack reasoned thought.--v/r - TP 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the above protests over people using words like “mob” to describe editors (a far too-frequent occurrence on WP). To even suggest that people who manage to get past all the many safeguards in a CDA are likely to be a braying “mob” is truly cynical.
The eight safeguards in a CDA:
1. Considering the consequenses and likelihood of failure. Especially vindicating the admin, if the support votes fail to make the high 'baseline' percentage, and protecting him to a large degree from further CDA's. And the possibility of compromising the nominators' standing on Wikipedia too.
2. Providing adequate evidence of: "Attempt(ed) persuasion first."
3. Providing adequate evidence of: "a demonstrable pattern of repeated unacceptable behaviors"
4. Passing: 10 good-standing editors of at least 3 months, as a starting requirement.
5. Passing: 50 'Support' votes from verifiable editors, to advance.
6. Passing: 70% of all votes being Support votes, to advance. (as it stood before the poll - but even 60%, or 50% is another stage in the process)
7. Debate on the Talk page, that could include all kinds of politics and influential figures supporting the administrator up for CDA
8. Consensus, based on the Bureaucrats' take on things.
The "mob" theory is just too convenient, and is voiced too often. In my view, it is an appalling lack of WP:AGF to all the editors on Wikipedia, and pretty much a middle-finger to the entire system, from the very people who have been given the authority to police it. Admin are not meant to be Gods – they are supposed to hold an unpaid (no comments) cleaning job (yeah right). It is not an act of heresy if a "struggling" admin gets close to being desysoped unfairly. It will NOT prevent the running of Wikipedia, and it will NOT stop good admin from having the courage to do their jobs (the biggest lie of the lot).
The only thing people who are against the very idea of CDA have a right to grumble about is the top 80% "advised de-sysop" threshold being unnecessarily low (it may as well be 90% or none), but even over-complaining about that shows a lack of trust in the bureaucrats' ability to spot what would have to be some serious 'gaming' going on to reach 80% of the total votes (againt all the likely admin/editor counter-support!).
It is the unaccountable nature of the current Administrator 'system' that allows such appalling arrogance, and I and every other editor here are absolutely entitled to take it personally. Why should we put up with it? Far too many Admin/Arbs just don't want be to accountable in any way at all - they want to keep the prestige and 'pov-and-control' power they were handed. 'Only a mop and bucket'? – dry laughter only please. They will do and say whatever they feel they have to, to keep hold of the huge powers they are so unwisely given. People who crave the power themselves will always be quick to support them. The anonymity of Wikipedia can magnify human nature by ten, and that applies to admin more than editors, because they've voluntarily put themselves through the largely brown-nosing and underwear-bearing process of getting the job. There are more than enough safeguards in this CDA proposal to allay any fear of 'editor mob' corruption, but admin gaming will be an absolute given, which is why a 70% baseline is just simply too high.
I've seen too much to pretend I haven't - if admin can't AGF with me as a Wikipedia editor, why the should I AGF with them as Administrators? I want to see a pinch of equality - I want to see some accountability. I won't accept not seeing it.
All good admin and all good editors should be desperate for this genuine opportunity for change. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
With respect, Matt, I find it rather curious that, in the beginning of your comment, you suggest that seeing Wikipedia editors as a "braying mob" is a shocking lack of WP:AGF, and then end your comments with . . . well, an appalling lack of WP:AGF. You quite clearly have a problem with admins, and that sort of makes your opinion null on these points. Your sweeping statements about how admins cling to power is no more ridiculous than the idea that a large enough group of editors can pack together and start lynching, with the minimum of organisation. Some balance, perhaps? Maedin\talk 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There was balance: in the middle of my comment I explained why admin are more likely (per head) to be 'corruptable' than editors. Sadly, it starts in the fact they want the job enough to go through (what seems to me) quite an unpleasant process, for an outrageously high bounty. I always mention good admin - and I genuinely respect and feel sorry for them too. I think they must be crying out changes, as I said. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
No true Scotsman would oppose this proposal. This is the sort of rational, nuanced assertion that makes me cringe at the mob justice this proposal would encourage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish! Where are you! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Wishing you would drop it, Matt. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"The community is reasoned and intelligent when it grants the mop, but when it wants to take it away suddenly it is a 'howling mob'" - Exactly. RFA is a place for community regulars to get together to discuss a candidate in the best light, after reading a statement crafted by the candidate and submitted at a time when he is presumably in a confident mental state and ready and willing to take on the challenge. CDA will be a place for people angry at a very recent action to get together, with little to no distance to reflect on what's happened, to discuss an admin at the very low point of his career, at a time when he is likely distraught and beseiged, and perhaps unable to properly respond to the accusations made by his opponents. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So how can an initial 'mob' (assuming the mob is all of the 60 people - 10 good standing editors plus the 50 support - needed to contrast the counter vote and make 70%) get past all the eight CDA stages I've highlighted above? Or are the people who come along and participate part of the 'mob' too? I really do not like the word, or the sentiments behind it.
As for "low point in career" - has anyone here but me considered all the safeguards as a compounding group? Most of them are necessary, but having a CDA with a high 70% baseline could actually damage Wikipedia, simply because it gives a false sense of fairness and acountability. So many safeguards would mean CDA wouldn't really bother admin at all (it could even make them feel safer), and consequently none of the net benefits of CDA (wider accountability, better adminship, less cynicism, more admin uptake etc) will occur. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you make a interesting point that I had not considered. With that in mind though, I still find it hard to believe a single event or low period could generate 60 angry users, as Matt points out. At least not 60 angry-illogical-and completely-lacking-clear-thought editors (AIACLCT Editors for short *smile*). However, assuming someone did manage to tick off 60 AIACLCT folks, they would still have to compete for 80% of the votes against the regular RfDA contributors. For 60 people to be the 80%, that would mean that they need a maximum of 15 regular contributors to notice the RfDA. I anticipate that there will be at least 50 contributors to an RfDa (similar to a small RfA) which would be the angry mob of the AIACLCT would need to convince 190 more people of their AIACLCT cause to achieve 80%. Canvassing those kind of numbers would be obvious and quickly convince a 'crat to close the RfDA. I just don't see an AIACLCT mob achieving their goals.--v/r - TP 14:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be making a distinction between the "angry mob" and "regular RFDA contributors" (how often are RFDAs going to happen that you expect a regular crowd to form?), but I expect them to be one and the same. The problem is that when harmful things are done people get angry and angry people don't necessarily react thoughtfully or with deliberation. That's just a function of normal human emotions and the lack of distance from events, and it applies to everyone from time to time. There's no solution except to create distance and remove emotion as much as possible. Arbitration serves to do just that - excepting emergency situations, cases last weeks to months before conclusion, while multiple steps of dispute resolution and a clear evidentiary process (and reference to past priciples and remedies) work to achieve impartiality. The proposed process, on the other hand, takes just 7 days from initiation and since it's not practical to set limits on how users vote, doesn't really have an evidentiary process. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am expecting that the regular RfA contributors will also participate in RfDA. I participate in RfA even though I know none of the candidates nor have any knowledge of them. I review their edits, what others say, evaluate my own feelings on the subject and offer my opinion and !vote. I expect that if RfDA passes CDA that I would also participate in RfDA similar to RfA. Not that I expect regular !votes to happen, but that I expect the same bodies of people from RfA to take interest in RfDA when it happens. Moreover, you mention multiple steps of dispute resolution, I see this as just one more step. A step between a simple RfC process with limited to no enforcement, to a RfDA process which is a little more enforceable and a little tougher to get through, finally to Arb where it is several month long case which fully and completly roots out the problem and solves it (the best it can). I am not saying Arb cannot or should not be a step, nor am I saying RfDA can or should be the final step. But I put it all on a scale of (Inaction)---DONOTHING-------RFC-------RFDA------ARB---(Action). RfC is such a minor event and Arb is such a major event, I'd like to see some middle ground that is enforceable.--v/r - TP 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) My basic thoughts on this are the same as Christopher's. Essentially, it only takes ten editors to get the de-adminship request to the Village pump (miscellaneous), the Administrators' noticeboard, and the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. That's quite some exposure, with no stop-gate as to what may actually have been "wrong" about the admin's actions. It will probably be summarised in the Signpost, too. That's the roughest thing about this; 10 angry editors are easy to find. Peer at a few contentious AfDs or an article's talk page during a move request or a content dispute. Or read some WR or IRC logs! Once the notice is posted, sure, less emotionally charged editors, not in the middle of conflict, may come and offer their support and the de-adminship may be unlikely to pass, but for seven days of name-calling and abuse, an administrator (they can never do the right thing, you've noticed?) in a volunteer position has the last vestiges of enthusiasm for the project stripped. In principle, I do support clearer, more efficient, less time-consuming de-adminship procedures, but I'm not convinced that the solution being offered is suitable for that purpose. Maedin\talk 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We've tried to make the "before nomination" part of the proposal stronger in discouraging that sort of thing than the original version was. For example, it is required that evidence be presented that editors explored other venues of communicating with the administrator before beginning a nomination, which should de-ignite trivial heat-of-the-moment reactions, and they should consider that the "bright light you are about to shine" will also shine on them, which is most certainly true. Is there more that should be said in the proposal, to make that sort of thing stronger? (About publicizing the nomination, I think most editors understand "innocent until proven guilty" to the extent that it applies here, so I don't really think it's any worse than an unjustified complaint at AN/I. And I'm pretty confident that community consensus is that a simple content dispute (assuming there isn't a deeper, chronic problem) is not a valid reason to pass a CDA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt requiring someone to post a request to resign on the admin's talk page will do anything to reduce trivial heat-of-the-moment reactions. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
However, that's not what the proposal says. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that also a problem of RfC?--v/r - TP 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just not convinced this is needed. I find the arguments Guy makes are compelling. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it might cause more harm in terms of keeping the admins we have (1707 admins - only <900 or so are active). We can't keep losing admins.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It has just as much of a chance at increasing the number of admins. Making the removal process as easy as the granting process, we essentially reduce the fears of those who !vote "no" on an RfA because they have a single or two doubts or concerns about a nominee.--v/r - TP 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Some people think that if we had a CDA process, we can be less stringent in creating admins. Personally I think that more people will want to be an admin, simply because Adminship will be seen as less of a seedy endeavour. Also, the good admin out there will happier to suggest decent editors (and especially decent cynical editors) for the roll. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It would also help if admins were appointed because of their stated willingness to clean up, apply policies, etc. Rather than the current system where admins are typically chosen because they have done a good job editing an article and may even be experts. Admins are not supposed to be expert content authors, yet that appears to be the criteria where many potential admins fail an RfA (where another admin with an opposing POV votes no based on not liking how the editor handled a situation, etc). It's also why 800 admins are no longer active (nearly 50% of all admins). The best admins are those that don't edit articles or push their POV in areas where they also admin. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I find myself being way pickier than I might otherwise be at RfA because of the lack of a quick and easy way to get rid of the sysop bit once given. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a good thing. We have way too many inactive admins and way too few active ones get way too much pressure. What we actually need is a way to mobilise non-admins more in dispute management, rather than just dumping every flamewar and custard-pie fight on WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Making more non-admins admins is the natural answer. WP:NOBIGDEAL. I suspect candidates like Salavat, HJMitchell, Jeffrey Mall, and EveryKing would be admins by now and not have faced as much opposition as they did if a proposal like this was already in place. Lambanog (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose I seen nothing in this that demonstrates a need for the process, one of the biggest issues WP needs to face is the ability of organised groups to control the outcome of discussions. We need to esure that admins are able to work effectively without fear of malicious reprisals this proposed CDA will create a tool for those groups to attack admins on mass, leave de-sysoping with ARB-Com where the people making the decision are selected by the community and endorsed by the foundation to act in the best interest of Wikipedia not those some third party. Gnangarra 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - this "unofficial" poll is a smokescreen. Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I was dismayed by this poll, did not participate (my feelings and thoughts are well known to many) and don't think much has been revealed except some questionable temperment. Sarah, I find your comment interesting. What do you mean by "smokescreen?" Thanks, Jusdafax 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sarah sees these actual "unofficial oppose" complaints as unfairly hiding the percentage votes, and devaluing the issues. She hasn't been editing a lot lately, but I know her position as I've discussed this on her talk page with her. She herself started the motion in early Jan for extending the dates to settle CDA (rather than rush forward), and she fully supported having this finalisation poll. While she voted 50%-80% in the vote 1 and 2, she would rather a 50%-70% 'consensus area'. She wasn't happy with 'running away' with a CDA set at 70-80 at all, and said she was inclined not to vote for something she didn't think would make a difference (and I think a lot of people may feel like this). Sarah's early-Jan motion to extend the CDA discussion phase before doing anything radical, while placed to the side to examine the 'meta' work (on the general textual detail etc), actually had almost full support. So without her it would have been much harder to create this poll, as it was effectively polled on the back of the consensus for extending discussion, which at the time it was set aside, we reserved the right to later go back to (eg people accepted that we could initially move forward with the donkey work on the text etc - but not necessarily straight on to RfC!). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the whole kit and caboodle. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ACTIVE DISCUSSION[edit]

Poll Results[edit]

It would be very helpful if someone could check the following arithmetic re Votes 1&2, and state that they have done so here.

Initial analysis:

Vote 1

The mean for the first preference is 62.38%. For the second preference it is 62.45%. I have not analysed the modal answer, as I am not sure how this could be interpreted given the range of options. At a glance I'd say it is either 60 or 70.

Vote 2

Second-choice votes in brackets.

24 (1) votes in favour of 90% , 26 (1) votes in favour of 80&, and 20 (10) votes in favour of "none", which last result could reasonably be interpreted as meaning "consensus should be left up to a closing Bureaucrat" (or 100%).

The above excludes three persons who stated "Oppose" for reasons I could not identify as being in the "consensus" category above and one person who suggested "85".

Vote 3

Overwhelming opposition to a two-stage process.

Vote 4

A number of people oppose the CDA concept.

Ben MacDui 12:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC) updated Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of Poll Results[edit]

Vote 1 & Vote 2

Vote 1: It is remarkable that the first and second preferences come out so close together, suggesting a real "consensus". But a consensus about what? 62.xx% is clearly not the answer. 62% is also a shade over-precise. Do we adjust up to 65% or 70%, or down to 60% - or what?

Vote 2 - about a third (35%) favour 90% about a quarter (26%) "none" and the remaining 39 per cent favour 80%. This could be looked at a number of ways but my own view is that this is best understood as meaning that 65% favour either 80% or none.

Both the above results then lead me to the inescapable conclusion that what the community wants is, in effect a version of the RfA wording that states: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion."

In this case however, given the arithmetic above, my suggestion is that the CDA Guide#Closure be amended to state: "Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above 80% support for de-sysopping are passed; most of those below 65% fail, and the area between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion."

Vote 3 - no reason to go forward with this or amend the existing Guide or RfC proposal.

Vote 4 - a useful discussion but again, I can't see anything here that would lead to an amendment of the existing Guide/RfC.

Ben MacDui 12:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it and starting to analyze the results. I will independently check the numbers, and also analyze the numbers a little more completely than you did, but it will not happen asap, for obvious reasons. A few observations, pending further thought: Vote 1: I see it similarly to you; we may need to figure out a different way of expressing the number/range in the document. Vote 2: Also see it similarly. My guess is that we need to stick with 80 at the top, re-evaluate 70 at the bottom, and, most importantly, look very carefully at the wording in the Guide to make sure it correctly reflects the difference between a guideline for Bureaucrats and a mandatory constraint, the latter being objectionable. Vote 3: Absolutely clear that we should present one final proposal, up or down, and not poll any further (but amending the existing drafts is another issue). Vote 4: Need to go through each criticism carefully and follow up with users who said they would make further suggestions, and need to look carefully at the FAQ to see if some objections can be addressed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The second votes need to be presented for consideration too: it might be possible to complete an easy-reference table when the data is all collected. Hopefully things will become clear without too much number crunching though.
Re VOTE 2, 90% and "none" are closer together surely, so the median is about 88%. It might be wise to move that downwards, and the lower one of around 62% upwards. Which could give the Bureaucrats a 65%-85% very "rule of thumb" consensus margin. After the percentages are settled, I agree that we need make sure we get the 'guideline' aspect of it right. That way, the Bureaucrats can easily get away with using 60%-70% to decide to take on a case (or dismiss one), and 80%-90% to decide whether to auto-desysop or not, avoiding all the drama. Using 65 and 85 'rule of thumb' allows for neat figures, if nothing else. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The notion of having 85% is not without merit, but I can't agree that "90% and none" are closer together. In what way? Ben MacDui 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Having 'none', or no top threshold (ie trusting the Bureaucrats to make an 'auto' de-sysop without having to see a vote percentage reached to do so) is closer in spirit to the higher 90% top threshold, than it is to 80%. 80% tends to suit people who want a guarantee that admin can effectively be removed by the actual vote, whereas 90% tends to be for people who want assurances that it won't happen too easily. 'None' is the ultimate safeguard, as makes sure that the vote alone won't be able to effectively remove an admin at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The figures of 35%/39%/26% for 90/80/none are essentially useless; the summation you make ("65% in favour of 'less than 90%'" is countered by the equally-valid "74% in favour of some threshold", which is arguably more 'valid' by being a higher percentage. Or the slightly more exotic "61% opposition to an 80% threshold", or something more bizzarre still. You need to come up with a much more convincing way of justifying your arbitrary pair of options, because those numbers give a "consensus" to any such pair. The possibility that the data may be unusable should not be automatically discounted; trying to wring consensus out of a poll can be like wringing water from a rock. Happymelon 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody panic, please, we need to start by just voicing things. Between us we can surely find figures we are all happy with at least taking to RfC (or as close to 'all' as we can get), whether we decide to vote 'for' them or not. If the data is actually unusable I for one wouldn't want to use it. In retrospect it would have been better asking for people just to offer their own percentage rather than chosing one - but it didn't (couldn't really, at the time, as that was 'old ground', and this not-wholly-supported poll was just meant to refine) and that's just the way it is.
HM, I know you personally chose not to vote (or give an 'oppose') in this recent poll, but how do you read the figures - does anything pop out? Also, do you think CDA can work at all? Do you find that your worries about Bureaucrats at present (which you expressed in #Bureaucrats), prevent you from accepting something where they have so much control over the outcome of? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I do think there is mileage in CDA, and hope fervently that it will be a step towards the easy-come-easy-go ideal that we currently seem so far from. What I detect in this discussion, however, is overconfidence, the certainty that you've written a proposal that editors will line up to support, which at most needs a few tweaks. I recognise it because it's exactly what happened to me and the others at WP:FLR/T. Play devil's advocate with everything you say, because some of it is pitifully easy to dismantle. You say that one of the polls shows consensus for something, when all you've done is made an arbitrary choice of 'something', and any other outcome, including the polar opposite, is supported to the same extent by the same data. That's not going to last five minutes in a final poll. I raised the issue of bureaucrats above; I don't personally have a huge problem with it, but many people will. That faction is not one you can simply ignore; resolving issues like that is not a nice-to-do, it is essential. Essentially I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because no one else on the page seems willing to, and because if no one does you are going to get the shock of your lives when you put up what you think is a consensus proposal and it gets shot down in flames. Polls highlight problems, not solutions; you have to find the solutions yourselves. Happymelon 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't really disagree that attempting to evaluate the results in a way that relies heavily on arithmetic is highly problematic - the questions simply don't lend themselves to "either/or" interpretation. However, we have to say something and I think my suggestion above, which is very close to the spirit of CDA, is about as close as we are going to get.
I value your experience and if you can think of a phraseology of some kind that would assist the proposal that's very welcome. Ben MacDui 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason we poll rather than vote is precisely that: consensus is not often found in numerical values but in reasoned discussion. Ignore the numbers, look at arguments. Who presents a reasonable point to support their !vote? How many people offer agreement to the point? Arguments that appear senseless are useful in their own right: ignore them to evaluate the consensus, but act to ensure that, if it were an honest misconception, it will not happen again. Votes without a rationale are essentially useless at this stage. In short, evaluate the poll as an admin, not a statistician. That's what you got the bit for. Happymelon 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
e/c. But who is the naive "you" you are refering to, though? With respect, you are lumping a lot of very different of people together. Most people with knowledge of these things (which is most of us here I think) would not be surprised for a moment if scores of admin who have turned their nose up so far, will join an oppose bandwagon, occasionally offering 'faults' as a reason, which they could easily (and actually helpfully if they wanted to) raise in the development stage. That most admin would never vote for a process like CDA is almost the received wisdom, and is even expressed by some admin. To that extent you are right in wanting to be as fussy as possible - but please don't fret so much, you are not the only one.
So basically, there is no point in being openly (or unduly) negative about this, however you might feel deep down. Quite simply, these things are easily eased off track if people start believing they are going to lose. So let's get to work! Providing we make a water-tight proposal (part of the reason for the last poll - it wasn't a 'railroading' thing, quite the opposite), who know what will happen if enough editors get to hear about the final 'community' vote? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying don't be optimistic, quite the contrary. I'm saying don't be cavalier. The more people you are convinced will oppose on general principle, rational or otherwise, the more determined you should be to resolve as many legitimate issues as possible. I'm not saying that "you're going to lose"; I'm saying that you are quite correct to be saying that there is still much work to be done. Happymelon 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some initial observations:[edit]

1. I think it is worth noting that when the voting began the CDA proposal (this page, the general links etc) was still somewhat untidy and difficult to follow (as these things inevitably get - no one to blame). Also, the FAQ was very incomplete for most of the poll, yet it was the place we intended to summarise previous discussion. Personally, I'm not convinced that many voters realised exactly how many safeguards this CDA proposal actually has (although the safeguards came up in discussion more as the poll went on).

2. A significant number of the 70% votes seemed to me to be less out of any real commitment to the 70% figure, and more out of various concerns, eg. Are the safeguards we have strong enough? This might be the only 'start' percentage the dissenters will vote for! I think the latter at least needs to be kept in mind.

3. 70% became less common as the vote went on, and hardly featured in the final quarter. This could be down to new blood, and may suggest that this is what the wider community would wish to vote for.

4. 66% had the most second-place votes at 18. At a glance, it looks like 50% had 5, 60% had 11, 70% had 9 and 75% had 1.

5. 6 of the total of 9 75% votes followed a notable pattern:

  • 70 (66) Admins are asked to make decisions which may prove unpopular. Those seeking to desysop need to demonstrate they carry the community behind them.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • 75 Per Wehwalt. I'd consider dropping this lower if there's a minimum total vote threshold, or once a track record of sufficient involvement and good discussion has evolved, but I don't want to see admins needing to garner large social networks of supporters against the inevitable dissatisfied individuals. Let's start high, and work down, rather than starting too low and risking factional politics taking out good admins. Jclemens (talk)

Five subsequent 75% voters said "per Jclemens":

  • *70 75. JClemens makes an excellent point in 75's favor. - Dank (push to talk) 3:09 am, 18 January 2010, last Monday (8 days ago) (UTC+0) With all the opposition, I don't think there's any chance of getting almost everyone on board with a number lower than 75, and it's important to get almost everyone on board, otherwise these desysopping votes will be mostly about the process, which would be unfair to the admin being reviewed. - Dank (push to talk)
  • 75 per Jclemens. Hordaland (talk)
  • 75 as per JClemens. –Juliancolton | Talk
  • 70-75 Crat discretion range. Mostly per Jclemens, also this site is too open to trolls and double !voting by sockpuppets for a simple majority to work. ϢereSpielChequers
  • 75 per JClemens, with a minimum participation of 100 editors as the only people who should be up for this are those who would have at least 100 people participating due to the severity of what they did. If they have erred enough to have a community desysop discussion, the number of participants needs to be significant.

If these 5 of the 9 total 75% votes were adjusted to 70% (supposing for a moment that their legitimate fears of a lower percentage were eased), that could actually make the median vote-adjusted average (if 62.x%) 60% or even lower, although that would perhaps not suite these particular voters. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant to say "median" in that last paragraph (and not "mean")? --Thinboy00 @221, i.e. 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to 'vote-adjusted average'. I think MacDui sees the first-choice votes (12 x 50%, 14 x 60%, 15 x 66%, 25 x 70% and 9 x 75%) being "close together" to the second-choice votes (5 x 50%, 11 x 60%, 18 x 66%, 9 x 70% and 1 x 75%) in the sense that they are both vote-heavy between 60% and 66%. When both are seen as a 'median', the mean of them is 63. I actually don't know how he got to 62.x, as he didn't give his calulation, but he does seems to see 65% as the 'overall' average though, and I would agree. When you just mull them over, 65% clearly springs out. (The above figures assume I have tolled up properly)
If we are to be more exacting: Of all the percentage choices polled, the arithmetic mean is a little over 64%, and the geometric mean is a little under 64% (ie the 5th root of 50x60x66x70x75), but neither of course are touched by the voting yet. The question is how to adjust 64% (or each of the percentage choices individually) according to the voting weights. The 'second-choices' can be adjusted to for further analysis, as could the 75% adjustments. Perhaps someone could do all this, although with 65% being such a clear average, I don't personally see too great a need. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The calculation is just the total numbers of all the votes added together divided by the number of voters. The above analysis does not correspond exactly to the result I have, but it isn't particularly relevant if we agree that the the mean lies somewhere between 62 and 65. The interesting thing about the second option in Vote 1 is that it implies that those who were initially aiming at a higher number than about 65 tended to have a lower number for the second option. Obversely, those that had 60 or lower as a first option tended to go higher with the second choice. Ben MacDui 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It does seem that many on the two 'sides' would be willing to accept somewhere in the mid sixties for the baseline percentage. It seems like a consensus within the confines of VOTE 1, although there are all the VOTE 4 oppose votes and extra voices to take into account too. Regarding VOTE 2, as I see 'none' as coming from a similar mindset to 90%, 85% is about the the mean average for me after the three percentages (80, 90 and 100) are broadly vote-adjusted. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what all this maths is about and haven't checked whether it makes sense, but as I said above, this is not an exercise in statistics, it's in consensus-building. If the majority of people would be willing to accept a particular figure, the justification for that is in the arguments they put next to their numbers, not the numbers themselves. ""70. 60 would also be fine with me, but I think 70 will be more acceptable to the community." is a user who would readily accept a value of 63%. ""70 (66) because two-thirds should be that minimum requirement to reverse established consensus."" is a user who would not. The ideal number has nothing to do with the arithmetic or geometric mean and everything to do with which argument is most likely to hold sway in further discussion. That sort of evaluation is infinitely harder and more time-consuming than the simple vote-count-and-stats, but is the only analysis worth doing. Happymelon 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point, will do, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You simply have to look at both the various calculations alongside the comments, and more besides. You can't ignore the maths, it's too useful. It's about taking into consideration all the data we have at hand - both within the poll and without it. There is sometimes a fear when numbers (or stats or whatever) are being discussed that people's feelings and comments are therefore going to be ignored (or compromised) - that won't be the case, esp if we all directly discuss things. We've only really made a few basic calculations to see how that poll went, and unfortunately we can't quite agree on the results. But I think we do have to in some fashion record the 'findings', despite the poll being as much an opinion-finding exercise as a vote. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

break[edit]

As promised, I've counted very carefully, and also thought very carefully about how to interpret the results. Here is what I find. As above, please feel free to check my numbers for accuracy.

  • VOTE 1:
First, counting only the first-choice !votes, one per customer:
  • 50%: 14
  • 60%: 16
  • 66%: 15
  • 70%: 25
  • 75%: 10
  • Blanket oppose: 4
Total editors participating: 84 (which is the sum of the above)
Second, counting (counting equally, too complicated to try weighting them) all preferences (first, second, third) that were expressed:
  • 50%: 18
  • 60%: 27
  • 65%: 2
  • 66%: 30
  • 70%: 35
  • 75%: 14
  • VOTE 2:
Counting first-choices:
  • 70%: 1
  • 80%: 26
  • 85%: 1
  • 90%: 24
  • "None" or "Oppose" or 100%: 25
Total editors participating: 77 (which is the sum of the above)
  • Editors supporting 80% who say explicitly that 90% is unacceptable: 3
  • Editors supporting 90% who say explicitly that 80% is unacceptable: 0 (some ambiguity about that, and I have a COI as one of those 3)

My analysis of Votes 1 and 2:

It is a mathematical/statistical mistake to calculate means. That falls under what Happy-Melon correctly described as misinterpretation of poll data. It's better to look at how the numbers distributed. When just looking at first choices, Vote 1 gives a spread across all the values considered, with a peak around 70%. When including alternate choices as well, a clearer picture emerges, with a peak at 66%-70%. Vote 2 gave pretty much an equal distribution amongst 80%, 90%, and various forms of objection.
Some but not all of the Vote 1 !votes in the 70-75% range came from editors who say they will oppose the final proposal. Otherwise, there is little indication that editors who supported one value for the lower end would consider it a deal-breaker if another value in this range were chosen instead. Many editors commented that they want Bureaucrats to have leeway, not strict numerical rules. In Vote 2, it should be noted that quite a few editors said "None" to indicate that they oppose the proposal in any form, quite a few said it to indicate that they want to give Bureaucrats leeway, quite a few to indicate that they want desysoping to be difficult, and quite a few to indicate that they want it to be easy. Similarly, quite a few supported 90% because they want it to be difficult to desysop, while quite a few supported it because they want to give Bureaucrats leeway. Thus, in Vote 2, there were often different and contradictory reasons for similar-looking !votes.
So, what to conclude? In the previous poll, it became very clear that Uncle G's original wording was subject to confusion: did consensus mean 70% to desysop, or 70% to remain a sysop? The community spoke clearly in saying that the percentage needed to be well above 50%; lower percentages were decisively rejected. SilkTork proposed language that emphasized Bureaucrat discretion, and it remains clear now that the community does not want strict numerical limits that constrain Bureaucratic discretion, but that the community also wants a much-greater-than 50% majority to desysop. So, we need to say something to make that latter point clear, without tying Bureaucrats' hands. One thing we can do is to look carefully at the wording of the proposal, to make sure we make clear that the numbers are not constraining (see my suggestion: [1]). Beyond that, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to change 80% at the high end. Any change upwards would bring as many opposes at it would supports, and there is just no compelling reason on the merits. At the low end, however, there is a case for adjusting the number slightly. Perhaps we should change "70%" to "65–70%"? That creates a range within a range, but it may better reflect community sentiment.
  • VOTE 3:
Very clear: present a single, finished proposal, for an up-or-down !vote, and get the details right before doing so.
  • VOTE 4:
  • An Arbitrator raised, but hasn't yet explained, an issue with how we define "editors in good standing" for nominating. It would be good to clear that up before going ahead with the RfC.
  • Some editors worry about nominations being made in the heat of anger. We should add a point to the FAQ addressing this misconception.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that combining first and second choice figures and finding a 'peak' is the wrong way to look at it, and it misses the only consensus that I can personally see in the vote: that the 'mid sixties' is accepted by a significant amount of both 'parties'. If we go for a figure above 66%, then 77 of those 'combined votes' would be below it! Quite a number of people voted for 70% as they felt it was the most likely percentage to pass, and not out of any real commitment to it. A number said they would lower it too, if assured of things. The fact there are so many '70%s' when combining votes reflects a number of complexities. The community will only be voting for the proposal they see in front of them course (they won't have an opportunity to vote for the CDA they think others want), so we have a duty to give them the CDA that they would likley prefer. Some of the reasons for voting seriously effect the readings.
Also - I can't see we can keep 80% at the high end, when the 90% and 'none' votes together outweigh it around 2:1! Again, we must make sure we have consensus.
I do think we need a single baseline figure, but we could offer an each-way leeway on top of the "rule of thumb" nature of the whole matter. I would say 65%, with a 5% leeway each-way for the baseline, and 85% with a 5% leeway each-way for the threshold. But that could be over-complicating matters. When I look at the figures, the only thing that seems clear is that 65 and 85 are likely to be the most widely accepted percentages. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your analysis here as well as higher up is wrong in so many ways I find it hard to know where to begin. The peak is there whether or not one adds in the second choices. It's how the responses were distributed. You ignore what editors actually said, in favor of predicting how they would !vote according to how you wanted the poll to turn out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at what people have said and the votes. I'm not ignoring anything, and my personal preference is for no percentages at all, as I originally said! I voted 60/90 as I could accept these, but I can see 65/85 coming through the figures in front of me. I'm not conning anyone!
If someone says "I will accept this and nothing else" we can't really take that into account, unless it is a common theme. The two principal themes I can see are 1) I don't really want 70% but I'm voting for it as I think the dissenters will demand it, and 2) If I saw better safeguards, my 75% would come down. Without actually adjusting for either of them, 65% still stands out as the average to me, and as the key second-place votes gravitate to it from both 'sides', as MacDui pointed out, it would appear to make it a reasonable consensus. I certainly can't see any other. Anyway, all my points I've detailed in my comments above. We're clearly going to need a lot of input here. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've stated before that I trust the main participants to hash this out. But, if input is asked for I'll offer this: 65/85 or the slightly more simplified two-thirds/seven-eighths percentages look right to me based on what's been written since the closure of the voting. What I would suggest is a section below of opinions from only editors who actually stated a percentage (including 100% or "none" for v.2) above who oppose or support one of those two consensus ranges as a "rule of thumb". Comments about the results should only come from actual voters, as what is being asked for is clarification, not a new slew of opinion. Ultimately, given IAR, I think a "rule of thumb" is primarily what it would be in any case. I certainly hope that doesn't complicate things, but I think that type of input might help explain where the consensus really is. Sswonk (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say. Especially given the complaint about what is this page for, just below, I'd certainly appreciate a larger number of editors offering advice on how best to interpret the results. I'd also caution other editors who are helping with this, against rushing too quickly to conclusions just for the sake of starting an RfC soon.
What does weigh heavily in my thinking is where Happy-melon said very wisely above: "You say that one of the polls shows consensus for something, when all you've done is made an arbitrary choice of 'something', and any other outcome, including the polar opposite, is supported to the same extent by the same data... Polls highlight problems, not solutions; you have to find the solutions yourselves." When I look at the question that was posed in Vote 2, it said: "Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all? As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4). Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one." A problem with polls is that people answer the question they were asked, and the wording of the question matters. Only one editor decided the wording of the questions. The question offered these three choices and no others, and implied that the three options were questions raised by earlier polling, and yet they were not. It also says "automatically". That was blatantly false. The wording of the proposal at the time was emphatically not that it would be automatic. So editors were being asked to answer a straw-man question. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, 80% etc was the "rule of thumb" automatic de-sysop percentage. Ie the 'threshold percentage' being reached facilitates an automatic de-sysop (avoiding the laborious discussion-phase and consensus-finding etc - the whole point of the "automatic" part), unless the bureaucrats decide it is so not simple (there could be gaming etc), so take it to discussion phase instead (hence the "rule of thumb" for the exact percentages).
Tryptofish - you refused to work on the poll before hand, and said nothing of this at the start of it (when you could have) or during it - so why criticise the wording now? You were essentially the first voter, so you could have edited the questions before you voted in it, and you must have noticed that I incorporated all the suggestions made in the Comments section after the poll had started (but before you voted), like the points that actually became VOTE 3 and VOTE 4.
I always knew these kind of post-poll criticisms would be made, but that's life as I stuck my neck out and made the thing. I'll only say this: I got that poll out as quickly as I could, as a proposal for an 'RfA asap' was made expressly to counter me doing it. So the poll wasn't perfect (or perfectly written) - but that's life. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Matt, I actually suggested alternative wording for the poll, which you ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied to you at the time that I couldn't see where you said did that, and you didn't respond. Unless you meant this? I couldn't work that out (as I said at the time), and I still can't. I did just appear to exaggerate what was mostly only an initial negativity to the poll by you though, for which I will apologise. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, anyway, what we agree on now is, going forward, to look at what we have and understand it correctly, and make the best proposal we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and looked again, according to what Happy-melon said immediately above the "break". It's not always clear what editors intended, but this is what I could do:

  • VOTE 1:
  • Would support 50-60%: 19 (few seem likely to oppose if number is higher)
  • Would support 60-70%: 5, plus 43 from sub-groups below = 48. (few in sub-groups seem likely to oppose anywhere between 60-70%)
  • Would support 60-66%: 14
  • Would support 66-70%: 29
  • Would support 70-75%: 11 (includes some who mainly oppose, and some who will oppose if number is lower)
  • VOTE 2:
  • Would clearly support 80-90%: 3
  • Support 80%, would not or might not support 90%: 28
  • Support 90%, would not or might not support 80%: 24 (includes some who mainly oppose)

I'm not sure that really changes what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think these are too complicated, rather confusing and a little leading too. The readings are very heavily weighted towards those who've said "no" to certain outcomes. We mustn't forget that in VOTE 2, 90% and 100% together outpolled 80% two to one. We musn't miss the wood for the trees here.
Also, '60%' was one of the polled percentages - are the votes for it included in both the 50-60 and the 60-70 groups? The second-choice votes from both 'extremes' actually gravitated towards the mid-60's. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote 2[edit]

There's quite some ambiguity in vote #2. For example, user:Ben MacDui interprets "none" as "...reasonably be interpreted as meaning "consensus should be left up to a closing Bureaucrat" (or 100%)..." and immediately after adds those seeking no threshold and those seeking an 80% threshold as one group.

So I've re-analyzed the 74 "non-oppose" responses to vote #2 from scratch. After some cleanup and reallocating the few responses that don't stand a chance of being consensus, this is what I get:

Details
  1. The votes and their comments were reviewed to try and interpret what the respondents actually meant. Options for 1st and 2nd preference were 70%, 80%, 90%, crat discretion (where "none" clearly meant discretion), "none" (where no further explanation given), and "not stated".
  2. 70-80% or 80-90% were counted as 0.5 of a vote for each.
  3. "Low" or 60% were counted as 70% initially (lowest value given vote 1).
  4. A single response of "none" with no other option stated, or a 2nd choice of "none", lacking any comment to the contrary, were both taken to mean "crat judgment" for that choice.
    The wording states Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
    A single response of "None" with no elaboration sounds like "no threshold, crat judgment". A response such as "80% (none)" sounds like "80% threshold, failing which no threshold and leave it to crat judgment".
  5. A table was set up showing the number of votes for each combination of 1st and 2nd choice (total = 74).
  6. It was obvious that 70% was not going to be consensus in any way. So all 70% 1st choices were allocated to 80% being the next lowest level that might gain consensus, and all 70% 2nd choices were reallocated to "not stated".
  7. The results were converted to percentages.
1st choice 2nd choice
  No 2nd
choice
80% 90% Judgment
only
TOTAL
80% 30%     4% 35%
90% 24%     11% 35%
Judgment only     28% 1% 1%   30%

Collapsing the 2 "judgment only -> 80/90" outliers for simplicity, we get this:

  1. First choice 80% = 35%
    no 2nd choice = 30%
    2nd choice is "no threshold, crat judgment only" = 4%
  2. First choice 90% = 35% of which
    no 2nd choice = 24%
    2nd choice is "no threshold, crat judgment only" = 11%
  3. First choice "no threshold, crat judgment only" = 30%

This can be interpreted in two obvious ways:

  • 70% of respondents stated a preference for a fixed threshold where desysopping is usually expected, though opinions are split between 80 and 90%
  • That said, 45% of respondents would support allowing crats to make the call if the minimum is reached, higher than the number who would support either of the 80% or 90% fixed levels.

On any view, it's close and probably needs another discussion to clarify consensus. I'd suggest the following question:

Crats will start to consider a desysop at around 60 - 70%. Should there be a level at which (in normal circumstances) desysopping should be expected and usual?
Options are 80%, 90% or "No guidance to be provided"
.

Raw analysis of the 78 votes is available if anyone wants it posted. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That analysis is reasonable, given the inescapable fact that the data are ambiguous. I would note that Sswonk's proposal actually does a very good job of addressing this analysis. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think one thing that can further complicate matters is when people compromise with their vote. I would personally rather the outcome was in favour of 'none' (ie no threshold, leave it to the Crats), but I actually voted "90 (none)", as I thought that doing so could help settle the vote around 90. I felt the no-threshold ('none') vote would be unlikely to get the most support, because people need to see some kind of percentage figure - partly to have 'mirrored power' in the sense of (more or less) being able to directly vote a admin out. So I admit that despite trying to originally poll for 'pure' opinion, I actually voted a little tactically myself. It admit that it wasn't the greatest poll Wikipedia has ever seen, but at least it was done. And completely pure voting is hard to fully achieve I guess.
I think to the two votes for "80% (none)" found 90% a bit rudimentary. A lot is down to emotional interpretation.
When FT2 says (something like) "Generally, Bureaucrats will start to consider whether to advance the process when the support for doing so is around 60 – 70%”, I wonder if we could manage adding, “and will only consider whether to de-sysop automatically if the support is at least 80 - 90%.” Does anyone fancy that? It could save us more debate-angst on this particular matter if it seems a fair interpretation of VOTES 1 and 2. I'm not against more open debate (and generally never am), but we could find this suffices now.
CDA is at the very heart of Wikipedia I think, despite the unlikelihood (imo) that it would be used anything more than rarely with all the safeguards in place. CDA is all about the presence of it, in my view. I'm hoping it will make editors a little happier, and admin a little more judicious. I don't believe that CDA will 'scare' strong admin from making the difficult decisions that are often needed on Wikipedia – if it does, I personally don't think they are worthy of being admin in the first place. If an admin is not the type to deal with rougher waters (there are lots of different types of admin), he or she can always call on one of the many admin out there who are. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any difference between the exact quote "[Bureau]crats will start to consider a desysop at around 60 - 70%" and the euphemistic statement "Bureaucrats will start to consider whether to advance the process when the support for doing so is around 60 – 70%"? The latter sounds a lot like "The firing squad will start to advance the process once the prisoner is blindfolded". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I keep thinking that the Talk page debating process only happens directly after the poll result (not during it). It keeps coming back into my head. How about:
After the poll has closed, a 'support' result of between 60 – 70% generally has to be attained before the Bureaucrats consider whether to desysop. Generally again, the Bureaucrats will only consider an 'automatic desysop' (without further ado) if the support is at least 80 - 90%.
It avoids using "65%" and "85%" (or whatever the threshold figure might be). You could have a shot yourself, Mr Trades TenOfAllTrades. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, is it difficult for you to just use my nickname? Anyway, it seems like you decided to ignore the question that I asked and head off in a different direction — why? If you want to have a different discussion, then indent appropriately. Please tell me if there's any difference between your euphemism and FT2's plain text.
In response to your request, why would I want to suggest something here? In the first place, I don't believe it would be appropriate for the 'crats to take on this added power, so it doesn't make sense for me to suggest how they should do it. In the second place, you're all guessing the length of the Emperor's nose here: [2]. You don't know what's going to happen during the process, you don't know what effect the (required) canvassing will have, you don't know what turnout you'll get, you don't know how many people are going to show up from Wikipedia Review, you don't know how persuasive (or not) the arguments made by each side will be — and yet you're trying to come up with a framework for calling the 'consensus' on the basis of raw numbers which suppresses as much as possible the opportunity for the bureaucrats to use their judgement (whose patina of credibility was the whole reason to involve them in the process in the first place). Finally, you're proposing text that makes no sense. The only permitted outcomes of the proposed process are desysopping and not-desysopping. A 'crat closing the debate as 'desysop' is an 'automatic desysop without further ado', regardless of numbers. What I think you're actually trying to say is that "Bureaucrats will not be permitted to exercise their judgement if the raw numbers exceed 85%" or whatever threshold you guys hammer out. If you guys can't find concepts that you're happy with when they're written in plain language, it's not good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what your nickname is. As for the rest of that first paragraph - you don't have a whip, you have a mop.
Regarding asking for you to 'have a go' yourself, I did genuinely think your were being more helpful lately (eg your comments on canvassing at the CDA talk page). If I've got this wrong I apologise. But really - so what if I did? I only suggested that you help.
If you read my responses to you you should know full well why the poll was rushed and floored, and if you call me "you" again after I've said time and time again now that I don't like it (I am not part of any railroading group), then I'll take you higher. I've never come across an admin quite like you, and there is incredible irony in an admin of 6 years acting the way you have been during an admin recall proposal! Admin are NOT supposed to wind editors up, and there is no way you would get knighted these days behaving like this. I don't mind brashness, passion or roughness in admin, and I accept that eveyone is different - but for me you act more like a typical pissed off editor, and I keep thinking you are just one.
The logic in my above suggestion is nothing like as bad as you say.
  • If 60-70% is not reached then the Bureaucrats will generally not look for consensus to desysop (though they might).
  • The process to find consensus will surely take the Bureaurats time - there could be quite a lot to take into account in difficult cases.
  • The 80-90% "without further ado" threshold is the place where the Buraucrats can decide to desysop immediately, because enough problems have been raised and the admin has clearly lost the trust of the community. It could save them a good deal of time deeply analysing the discussion etc.
  • The Bureaucrats may decide to 'auto desysop' immediately with a 60% result (or even less) - but chances are that life will not be that easy, and they would need a high community vote to do so.
I am also happy with 65% and 85% percent. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Not sure that we can have start/end as ranges in the final wording. The numbers identify where discretion probably is/isn't needed. A crat faced with 60%, 65%, 70% needs to know (in "normal" circumstances) which percentages are usually inside the discretionary zone, and which are usually outside it. It needs to be two specific numbers ("Below X% no desysop will usually take place, between X - Y% the closing bureaucrat will assess consensus, and above Y% consensus is usually deemed to be met and desysopping will usually be the outcome"), or a minimum level ("...above X% the closing bureaucrat will assess consensus"). Also note this isn't just for the crats to know what the community would feel. It's also for the general guidance of the community and helps ensure some degree of consistency. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Which gives something like;
As a general rule; the 'support' votes must be 65% of all votes polled for the Bureaucrats to consider whether to desysop, and 85% of all votes polled for the Bureaucrats to decide to desysop automatically, due to the admin losing the communities trust.
(When using 85% as the threshold percentage). I think highlighting "community trust" could be a good idea, as it is a separate matter to the 'compelling' auto-desysops at much lower percentages. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(Reposting from here)  Bear in mind the crats are evaluating consensus. They need guidance on the minimum level ("how strong a consensus we want to see"), and beyond that, how much stronger the apparent raw percentage can be before there's really not much question about it and no real "judgment" needed. A wide range between the two numbers says we ourselves aren't sure how strong a consensus should be needed. If we aren't sure, how can the crat involved decide if our view on "strong enough consensus" was reached? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
My expectation on that vote was that this was a rule of thumb. I don't think there really should be an "automatic" type vote, though 80% not in favor is a serious problem and I think most crats would be willing to say at that point "yes, the community is in agreement" (and that is why I chose 80%) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A simple model[edit]

Extended content

(moved to this section from bottom of page)

Let's look at a Hypothetical situation, which we try to resolve with this process.

We propose to a hypothetical community of 100 hypotheticopedians, the following situation:

All 100 hypotheticopedians are riding on a bus. The bus comes around a corner at 100 km/h, and suddenly, there's an obstacle in the way! Now the group needs to decide what to do. There is still time to brake. The bus is not equipped with ABS or ESP, so it can't brake (or accelerate) and turn at the same time without (a presumably terminal) loss of control. Everyone is aware of this.

At the start of the discussion, exactly 60 people go by their gut instincts, and think that the bus should swerve. 40 people realize that they don't actually know what's past the wall, and believe that they should hit the brakes and stop.

The following questions are proposed:

  1. How should we steer?
    1. Swerve Left
    2. Swerve Right
    3. Go straight
  2. What about our speed?
    1. Hit the brakes
    2. Hit the gas
    3. Don't touch the pedals!

How will this vote go?

  • Those in favor of swerving will choose to swerve either right or left, and are tied at 30 each on swerve left or swerve right. At the same time if you swerve, you can't touch the pedals, or the bus will skid out of control, so all 60 support "don't touch the pedals", as anything else is obviously crazy!
  • All 40 in favor of stopping will all go for "hit the brakes". Turning the wheel whilst braking is suicidal due to lack of abs, so they all vote to go straight. They are not, after all, stupid. ;-)


Final scores:

  1. How should we steer?
    1. Swerve Left 30
    2. Swerve Right 30
    3. Go straight 40
  2. What about our speed?
    1. Hit the brakes 40
    2. Hit the gas 0
    3. Don't touch the pedals! 60

From this poll, we conclude that the wheel should be held straight, and one should not touch the pedals.

At the conclusion of the poll, they carry out what all acclaim to be the ideal course of action, which is most likely to save their lives.

The bus hits the wall at 100 km/h, and everyone dies.

Questions:

  • What went wrong?
  • Why was no correct solution reached?
  • Who is to blame for the accident?
  • How could the example problem have been solved differently?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, I have used the same poll design as has been used throughout this process. If not, please correct me!

Opinion: Thank you for your contributions. While I can assume good faith, I can also see the initiation of this topic in this manner as a tortured attempt to derail the completion of this phase of the process by posting an improbable hyperbolic metaphor unrelated to serious efforts to conclude the work. As before, it might be characterized as a smokescreen, diversion, red herring and distraction, but not really constructive. There were questions about the threshold numbers, a poll was conducted to gain a sense of what consensus on their values is, and that poll has been taken into consideration. There is no bus, no driver and no wall to crash into. I suggest that the main contributors here not waste time responding with another long series of back-and-forth argument about Kim's new topic and instead focus on concluding the work. Sswonk (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an unwarrented assumption of bad faith, and I really don't deserve that, especially based on my very long record of constructive contributions to wikipedia, of which this is one.
There is indeed no bus, no driver and no wall, obviously. They're all just part of a model: Model_(abstract), Toy model . I think the process used may have issues when 2 questions are (unintentionally) causally linked. In that situation, the outcome is not reliable. It would at the very least be useful to check all the questions to see if there are questions where this problem might occur.
Your own comment does not appear to be constructive. Are you willing to apologise? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not at all. Read correctly, the opinion I stated assumes good faith but shows that bad faith might be assumed, thus initiating a virtual brawl over the content of your prose. Too much time has been spent discussing the faults of the bureaucratic methods used and I am asking that, in order to realize a sound document at the conclusion here, the main contributors focus on that work rather than perform forensics on methods previously used. Considered against the recent efforts to refine and summarize the details of the nomination and review process given in the draft, your new topic in my view detracts from that work. I do not want you to be upset by the opinion I offered, surely everyone has thousands of edits and valuable input in the past to stand on. If you are offended, I don't wish that to be the case, but rather I hope that you don't hold up the end game here. By reading my opinion and seeing that it might be seen that you are throwing a monkey wrench into the gears (spanner in the works), I hope you will not pursue a concerted effort here which could take the focus away from finishing and instead dissecting the methods already used. What you wrote is food for thought, but I don't see it as something the primary editors of the draft, of which I am not one, should spend time discussing with you at this stage. Sswonk (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, on re-reading, I see what you mean. <scratches head>.
That's a meta-level of politics I haven't seen here very often. I'm going to have to think about what to say next (if I say anything at all).
And of course, I'd like to offer my own apologies for misreading what you said. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to the edit conflict, (shouldn't MW have produced a better forum venue by now, it's 2010!), I did not take time to consider your insertion of the middle paragraph about scientific models. It solidifies my understanding that your topic is food for thought, so at this stage I will step back and wait for others to comment here. I simply think that the RfC is near good enough, and the language open ended enough, for arbs to subject any CDA process to form their own conclusions if a CDA petition is presented to them. Down the road, at future RfC draft discussions regarding policy, your somewhat difficult to grasp example should be considered during polling. Sswonk (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of this page?[edit]

Extended content

The length and circuitousness of the discussion here does grave injustice to transparency. By the time you finally propose something, people will be so sick and tired of the endless process that they will oppose for the sake of ending it all. We don't want bureaucracy run amok, which is what this page has become. Jehochman Brrr 14:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shame on you Jehochman - the opposite is true. You just keep proving to us that some 'admin' feel they can do and say what the hell they like. What was the point of periodically saying this stuff, other than to cause disharmony? You have never once backed up your quite serious claim. Regarding "sickness", speak for yourself and not for others. If you want to see how childishly admin can behave, just propose a form of Admin Recall it seems. I understand consensus. I understand how Wikipedia should not be a closed shop, and how wide input can lead to long discussion (wich you misleadingly claim is 'bureaucracy'). I understand how these matters can (and sometimes have to) take time. It strikes me that you either understand none of these things, or simply want aggitate the small amount of impatience around... Matt Lewis (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My disgust grows daily. The point seems to be to alienate all sides with endless dithering, polling, and process for the sake of process. My attempts to set a reasonable date for an Rfc have been rebuffed. I fail to understand what is so difficult about this. In my outlook, the Cda proposal has effectively been hijacked. I again call for a date to be set for an Rfc. Jusdafax 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't you see you are falling into a trap here? You would have received the above with spades if you ran with 70/80, knowing FULL WELL you could not show there was consensus for it. Such unashamed railroading has nothing to do with what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Jehochman started the 'Motion to Close' the entire CdA propsal, remember - he would have tampled all over 70/80 at the RfC. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to stop the process. My strong urge is that the RFC go with a "send to arbs with prejudice"/"arbs should desysop without discussion" recommendation based on 65/85 percentage of support following CDA discussion closure. Don't bother parsing or analyzing my exact words, you should know what I mean. Unless there is vehement and quick objection here to that being done, I submit this page should be closed at 00:00 27 January 2010, or six hours from the top of this hour. Sswonk (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sswonk, there is no reason to shut down discussion simply because tempers are running high, and there is no way an acceptable RfC can be prepared on that time scale. Matt, drop it. Everyone else, Matt speaks only for himself, not for the proposal that will emerge. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tempers are not the problem. Continued distraction by pointless (red herring/smokescreen, take your pick) objections to the "scary bureaucracy" is the problem. My interpretation of events is: the proposal asking for the extension of this discussion, where Sarah777 wrote "I think we need the additional time to (1) work on the most favoured options on the list above; (2) refine them into a proposal that gains a simple majority in a vote by a deadline (15 January)"[3], and which was nearly unanimously supported, has now dragged on past the 15th to today, the 26th. I fail to see what is unacceptable about the RfC that won't simply be objected to in some other convoluted way going forward. The vote was requested to be done by the 15th and, albeit several days late, now is closed. It is time to move forward. Sswonk (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Move forward with what, specifically? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The previous closure extension had two steps, one to end on the 15th. This is that. The second, "set up a vote on the formulation supported by a simple majority and circulate news of the vote widely across the community. This vote to have a deadline of 31 January." – that, I interpreted to mean the RfC itself. So, whoever is bold enough to do so should finish and publish the document, initiate the RfC and notify the community using the best practices established for such a vote. That is what I meant by "move forward". What else was supposed to happen after 4 January, the original closure deadline before Sarah777's proposal to extend was approved? Sswonk (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, but I'm asking: are you going to put the RfC forward with 66%, 85%, what? On whose say-so? And do you think that the FAQ is ready? WP:There is no deadline. Actually, Skomorokh and GoodDay said it better than I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I said above, and you quite obviously read it since you responded using my username, 65/85. If there is no deadline, which I understand quite well, what was 4 January? 15 January? 31 January? More generally, 7 days for an AfD? What? If this wasn't already under two deadlines before, I wouldn't suggest one to close here. But it was. The end of this discussion has no end based on the ability of anyone or several ones to cite WP:DEADLINE. It is a strange loop, which will lead exactly to the frustration exhibited by persons interested in seeing the acceptance of CDA generally. People voted, now we are wringing hands over what the vote "means"? The obvious conclusion I see is that 65/85 will be a compromise that can be contained in a viable RfC, while 50/None or 70/80 won't. My desire is that the chief participants end this phase, quickly, and get the FAQ done and go to the community. The proposal of CDA will become policy, of that I am almost certain. If it needs to be refined after it's RfC is passed, that is the time to tweak it. The fundamental message here, I feel, is CDA is viable. Stop opening it to further objection here and rather get it out into the entire community of editors. Sswonk (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, we agree more than we disagree. I just feel that, once we "get it out", we better be confident we have it right. You said 85 almost simultaneously with MacDui saying not-85. And the best way to get it out is to actually work on what it will say, not by arguing about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
65/80 I support also. Go: end of subthread. Sswonk (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to be patient, but at this point I have to agree with those that call for this endless nattering to be stopped at once, unless a reasonable date is set for an Rfc today. Failing that, perhaps in a few months or years we take up this subject again. I speak as someone who believes in Cda and has devoted considerable time to the debate, and is now at the end of his tether. Jusdafax 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you need to take a break and let the authors of this proposal get on with it. In the event that nothing productive results from this effort, no harm is done by letting it run its course. If however this does result in a viable proposal to be put before the community, rushing matters will be of absolutely no benefit.  Skomorokh  18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If one is frustrated, one only needs to step away. The earth will continue to rotate on its axis, while the CDA thingy is ironed out. We've got the time & the space, by all means allow the process to continue. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a community desysop procedure last year, am interested in the topic and would like to be involved in the discussion. However, I feel that circular reasoning, poor management of the discussion, extreme rhetoric (such as the accusations of bad faith against me), and endless stonewalling have ruined this discussion. Instead of blowing me off, please address my concerns. What is this page for? Can we organize a discussion that actually leads toward some sort of resolution? Jehochman Brrr 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'd welcome that from you, and I'm sorry that, because we cannot all speak with one voice, the voices have been, well, disparate. But honestly, I don't understand what, specifically, you are asking for in terms of what would actually be proposed. At this point, it seems to me that we are deciding what to propose in the document to be presented to the community, not to discuss the process that has already occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good. As far as I can see we require two things to be clear before closing this page as an "active discussion".
  • Clarity about the actual results of the poll so that a brief summary can be added to Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Pre RfC Summaries.
  • Agreement or clarity, about what changes, if any are appropriate to make to Guide to CDA based on this information.
The former should not be difficult, although precision is difficult because of the nature of some answers. I'd be happy to look again at my numbers, square them as best I can with Tryptofish's and present something below based on the latter's analysis - although it will not be today. If this produces further elaborate discussion then I suggest we simply use something that approximates agreement and direct the curious back here if they want to see the detail.
For the latter I don't think there has been a counter-proposal to "Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above 80% support for de-sysopping are passed; most of those below 65% fail, and the area between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion." save that suggestion that 85% replace 80%. I don't support 85% per Trypto's logic above.
I sympathise with those that are running out of patience here - I am as keen as anyone to get on with the RfC, but it can't be at the expense of extracting a little more clarity about the meaning of this poll's results. Ben MacDui 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well said, with maybe a need to work a little further than that on the wording about percentages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ben. At this point I'll go along with whatever is decided for final wording. However, setting a firm date for an RfC is long overdue. How much more time is required? Ten days? Fifteen? Twenty? Thirty? Ha, perhaps we should have a poll about it and argue about the meaning of each word? The time has come to give this process an ending. Otherwise I regretfully agree with Sswonk... stop the madness. I tried to set a date, which is now past. Do you see a date in February for an Rfc? In this case, a deadline is needed. With respect and urgency, Jusdafax 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am as keen as any editor to get a working CDA set-up operational, but see absolutely no need for the urgency to which you allude. Yes, this process has taken a long time. Yes, it has seemed convoluted and inefficient at some points. Neither of those are good reasons for rushing to a botched conclusion. A better approach would be to ask how we could help expedite the steps Ben mentions without compromising on the thought and effort required. Everyone here wants to present the best proposal we can make, so let's focus on that goal rather than putting pressure on each other.  Skomorokh  19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, and Skomorokh says it better than I do) Again just speaking for myself, I'd be surprised if it takes beyond early February. But I've been surprised before, as I bet you have too. I'm glad that you'll go along with whatever is the final wording. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that many other editors will, too. Let's just make sure that it will actually be community consensus. I'd much prefer a mid-February RfC that passes, over an early-February one that fails. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no rush, folks. We've got the time & the space, let's use it. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A steady and assured pace is what we need, with the ability to (without fear) stop to debate whenever we have to. I personally don't want it to last a second longer than it needs to. But I just can't see fully ahead yet, other than I know we can do this if we keep on track.
Admin are rarely taken 'higher' over minor matters, let alone serious ones, so my guess is that CdA will hardly be used, whatever variant is proposed. One reason why I didn't personally want to see the baseline as high as 70% is that it would put already-reticent people off risking it, and the CdA process would give Wikipedians a false sense of fairness, while the actual admin around and about wouldn't be worrying about it at all. At 70%, I think admin could say "take me to CdA if you have a problem" without worrying too much that someone would bother doing it, esp if it was widely known that the admin had enough 'friends'. And we would see none of the 'net benefits', like the presence of CDA (as oppose to the use of it) encouraging admin to work/think/behave in a slightly more accountable manner than the complete freedom to do and say whatever suits them, which they have in far too many situations now. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship (from the talk page of Cda originator Uncle G, October '09)[edit]

"A great idea. How can it get approval, and what relationship does it have to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship? Fences&Windows 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey Uncle G, I just noticed this too. Would you want to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator? If everyone works together, maybe we can get some of the changes that folks want. I know there are at least 3 or 4 other pages along these lines (listed there) - and I think a co-ordinated effort would go a long way towards making things happen. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Feel free to list it if you want to. As to adoption, I quote to you the wise words of Radiant!, inventor of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "It's been discussed to death several times for at least half a year. There are at least three older proposals that in essence are the same as this one, only somewhat more complex. We can discuss for another half year, or we can go for a test run for a chance." The same is true here. There are existing proposals in this case, and they are either less fully formed (with vague handwaving on the details such as how actual requests are structured) or full of bicycle shed elements (such as laundry lists of why people should be de-sysopped). Hence the reason that I presented WP:CDA at WP:RFAR as a mechanism to actually use, with a concrete implementation and without such bicycle sheds to argue over. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)"

I post this here to point out the thoughts of Cda originator Uncle G from over three months ago. Set a date for an Rfc... today! Jusdafax 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't worry... today. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I was set a date once to move into a new house. That date was put back twice as it wasn't quite finished yet. Boy, was I annoyed. Not annoyed enough though to move into an unfinished house. Can you imagine if I had and the building collapsed around my ears! What's the rush, a little patience does no harm, it actually benefits everyone in the long run. Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Specific section to be worked on[edit]

In hopes of focusing productively on the actual task at hand, here is the sentence of the draft proposal, prior to the most recent poll and discussions:

"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 support 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."

I subsequently have made some bold edits during this poll, in hopes of partially addressing the concerns that have been raised:

"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 support de-sysopping. Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a non-binding descriptive rule of thumb, above approximately 80% support for de-sysopping would usually be acceptable; while support below approximately 70% would usually not be, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion."

At this point, what we are really still discussing comes down to:

  • Should the wording be further modified to better reflect community wishes?
  • Should "70%" be replaced with something else?
  • Should "80%" be replaced with something else, or removed completely?

That's really it, as far as I understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You might as well use 100% as those percentages. Any admin with so much opposition will be forced to resign well before this proposed process ever swings into motion. You're building a gravel road next to a superhighway. Why bother? Jehochman Brrr 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Instead, the idea should be extremely simple: "If an RFC shows a solid majority of editors (let's say 2:1) feeling that adminship should be removed, then a bureaucrat will close the discussion and ask a Steward to flip the bit off. Normal RFC rules, processes and protections against gaming are in effect." There. Done. Go propose it and see what sort of feedback you get. Maybe people will argue for 1.5:1 or 3:1 ratios. Such details can be worked out. Jehochman Brrr 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting these things. I agree with you that, by now, what I asked above is really coming down to a pretty simple question—despite all the talk surrounding it. The issue, I think, is that although it seems like there is a lot of agreement about there needing to be "a solid majority", there are differing views about how to define that. You've said 2:1 as an example here, which is 66%, a value that is very much what we are discussing here. A lot of editors have already said that they have issues about it needing to be 2:1 versus 3:1 or vice-versa, and so forth, and all I am really asking here is to agree on how we'll say it, based on the huge amount of feedback we've gotten already. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand how such a compromising process can be personalised (ie who is the "you are.." you refer to?). Wikipedia is about finding consensus from a wide and often widely-disagreeing group of people. How else can you do that other than to listen to people (occasionally poll etc), and at times find the compromise position?
As it happens, I agree with having no top threshold at all, but that boat has surely sailed now? A lot of people voted for 'none' in VOTE 2, but the vote was seriously split. No threshold was my first (and still ideal) position on joining the debate (ie to trust consensus), but it soon became apparent to me that most people feel there is no way administrators (and their supporters, aspirants etc) will vote for anything that would remove a 'sysop right' at less than a seriously high percentage. That is surely why there has ended up being such a high threshold, with a 'consensus margin' underneath.
In VOTE 2, People are genuinely divided into those saying "80% MAXIMUM!" for the auto-sysop threhold (to make sure the community can actually remove someone themselves), and wanting the threshold as high as posible (or having no threshold), either to protect a previously decent admin in extremis, to rely only on consensus, or simply to encourage the opponents of CdA to actually vote for it. I picked 90% as it was a compromise between actually having a 'auto-desysop' figure, and the admin-protection position of wanting it to be as high as possible. A lot has been compromise, but as such divided positions can't be ignored, compromise is just a fact of life.
Will '66% and out' (with some caveats etc) win a community vote and become policy? I agree that the pressure for an admin who has shown to have reasonably and fairly lost the communites trust to 'step down' will be much stronger with the CdA process being part of Wikipedia (right now such a pressure would mean nothing to a defiant admin), but I just can't imagine most admin voting for such a proposal. Maybe I do lack AGF. Or perhaps it's just expeience. I also worry that the 'failure' of this RfA (even with good feedback) will fail to lead anywhere positive. One thing I do strongly feel - whether CdA gets in the Top-page Watchlist or not could make a hell of a difference to the outcome, as typically it is mainly only admin who get to hear about these kind of 'events'. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, the actual language at this point in time, after MacDui's edit, is now:

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 support de-sysopping. Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above 80% support for de-sysopping are passed; most of those below 65% fail, and the area between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.

Speaking only for myself, that works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

65% is good for the baseline, and I think was a developed 'consensus'. I could live with 80% for the threshold (as I could with 85, 90 and none), but I think the 'compromised' consensus was closer to 85%, which will cause us problems. 90% and 100% (when combined) actually outpolled 80% by two votes to one (2:1). I can't see how we can ignore that, and those 90 and 100 voters could seriously exercise their right to complain. Going with 65% and 85% is essentially an adjustment of 5% each way on the original 70/80, and I think is more likely to fit in with what the 'broader' community (ie including the admin-happy out there) would want to vote for. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
About that 85: skewness risk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the risk. 80% was out-voted 2:1, with 90 and 100 combined. Is using 90% a skewness risk? All the 'mean averages' I have used a the mean of intent, never just a statistical one. Sometimes when there is a direct split in consensus, an in-the-middle compromise is all you can do. I personally think that both 'sides' can accept it too. Perhaps less the 80% people - but what can you do? They were in the minority, that's just the way it is. Given the initial concerns with CDA, I think the poll does reflect reality here too. Yes, if the page is Watchlisted, there could be a huge amount of typical Joe editors who would be happy with 80%, but there would a significant amount of people demanding higher too (as they always have done on this page). And some of them are sure to bring up the discrepancy of going with 80% after the finalisation poll results showed it was not a consensus. I just don't think the RFC can stand that kind of criticim. 85% is at least a compromise that no one can claim is not a 'discovered' consensus. It would be unlikely anyone would spoil their vote over it I feel, as CDA, at the end of the day, is all about trusting the bureaucrats. In almost all cases, 80% would surely see an admin de-sysopped. So why risk not going with 85%?
In short; I think going with 80% is a risky option, whereas going with 85% is a safe one. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, let me revise what I said, as I was imprecise in my application of statistics. Skewness risk is what applies to the "lower end", ie, 65% versus 70% and so forth, discussion: you cannot get a meaningful mean from a highly skewed distribution. But here we are actually talking about 80%, 85%, 90%. I should have referred you all to Bimodal distribution#Summary statistics. You will see that the results of Vote 2 were a classic bimodal distribution, and that simply taking a mean, splitting the difference, "can be deceptive", as the page says. People like me who have analyzed scientific numbers professionally cringe when people treat non-normal distributions as though they are simple normal distributions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I meaned people's intent. If you see what I mean. In fact I try not to use mathematical terminology - it doesn't always help. 100% is closer to 90% in intent, and the in-between figure with the 3 sets of votes (80,90,100) taken into account was, if I remember correctly, around the the mid-late 80's. So I can see a genuine 'compromise consensus' at 85%. I can see no consensus at all for 80% as there clearly is none. So we do not have a clear consensus, alas, although we could have a developed one - but only with a lot more discussion.
In many ways I could accept 80% myself, but I can't see consensus for it, and hence would rather the option with the least risk at the community poll (both in the criticism it will likely incur, and the votes). And, to be honest, I'd like to try and do the 'honest' thing too - always a good fallback when in doubt. Granted, 80% (not 85) was part of proposal 5.4. But proposal 5.4 was only the small poll that turned out to have more 'support' votes than any of the other small polls. Many did not like the polls. To 'set in stone' what was hardly a resounding consensus was strongly objected to, so we had to explore further, and in doing so things changed. 85% is a compromise consensus rather than a clear one, but it really does stand out. Can you live with it? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you try not to use math terminology, the fact remains that there are right and wrong ways of interpreting the results, and splitting the difference is the wrong way in this instance. I've already explained why it's wrong: (1) the question was worded misleadingly, so people were answering a hypothetical that is not true; (2) there were divergent and contradictory reasons why people who !voted 90% did so, with some, indeed, wanting the threshold to be higher, but others signaling that what it said in the question, that the upper number would be an automatic trigger that would trump Bureaucrat discretion, was objectionable; (3) with this indeed being a bimodal distribution, there is no logic behind saying that those who !voted for either "mode" would necessarily be happy with 85%, and HappyMelon was right to say earlier that polls can show us problems, but they do not necessarily show us the solution, so we shouldn't interpret them naively; and (4) I'll add now that you've been raising this issue for several days now, and not one editor has emerged to agree with you, whereas all of us who have been involved in the discussion have explicitly disagreed with you. You pushed for the poll and you're pushing for an interpretation of the poll that others of us reject. And I, myself, still do reject it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Who other than you disagrees with replacing 80 with 85%? You are the only one who keeps shouting down 85%, and your voting comment was "anything above 80% is unacceptable to me" makes you a little WP:COI, whereas I am genuinely 'in the middle' on it. And you really shouldn't keep calling me "naive" because I don't accept your interpretation of the votes.
Even with the factors you raise above, 85% is still the average of a clearly 'split' consensus between 80%, and the 90%-100% range: ie between those who want a lower threshold, and those who want a higher one (or have none at all). So your confused-voter points (1) and (2) are not enough to change things, and you point (3) is just one of those things: We can't just stay with 80% because it cannot be 'proved' that 85% would make the 90% and 100% people happy! Surely every one of them would be happier with it than 80%! Some of the 80% people would be unhappy, granted - but would they all be as unhappy as you are about this?
When it comes to post-poll opinion, as far as I remember we have; 2 for 85% (me and Sswonk), 1 expressly against it (you), and 1 neutral (NJA sees it as a bureaucrat decision - which leans towards 85 in my view). Not a great deal to work on. I think MacDui just said 85% is "not without merit" (another neutral perhaps).
The risks of running with 80% without having consensus for it are clear. So what are the risks of running with 85%? I can't see any, and it allays critism from both sides, as good compromises always do. CDA is supposed to be all about the bureaucrats decision anyway - so why is this such a big deal? Is this about not trusting the crats? Because they are fundamental to all of this. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You have obviously not convinced me, and I am also not convinced that you are accurately representing what some others have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can show me otherwise, MacDui and NJA did not commit either way - though neither discounted it. I keep mentioning 85% and no one steps in and objects other than you. But of course without actual input we just don't know. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
My choice was 90% (if I recall correctly), therefore I'm content with 85%. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We forgot Dank - he voted for, and argued for 85% Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looking at the page history, I see only a few names working on this page in the past three days. Here is a summary of what I can determine these editors have to say about this "auto desysop" recommendation threshold: Ben MacDui 80%; Tryptofish 80%; Matt Lewis 85%; Kim Bruning (indeterminate); Good Day 85% (originally 90); Sswonk 85% (80 OK); Jehochman 100% (none, to simplify); TenOfAllTrades (indeterminate).
Without complex mathematics, I would say that of those where a preference has been given in the past few days and who are working on this now, a low number of 85% should be an attainable consensus, with language constructed in the CDA to point to this as merely a "rule of thumb" or "ballpark" figure for a recommendation to arbs of auto-desysop. If someone closing a CDA discussion, in a well-reasoned manner such as those offered at highly controversial, closely !voted AfDs, can show through argument that the best CDA arguments support a lower raw percentage, that can be stated by the closer as the CDA is sent to arbs. Argument and reason will be taken into account as they are in any controversial community discussion with !voting. Why else do we put the "!" in front of "votes" when talking about them? It indicates that raw percentages are generally viewed by the community with skepticism. So, can't we today, Saturday, conclude with this part of the debate with a figure of 85% as a number? I guess I must be speaking to Ben and Trypto, since they are still not sure about 85, and I understand that many of the people who voted but are not participating in this final discussion would like to see a lower number. In seriousness, I think that if a sysop is at even 70% disapproval, and good arguments are made to conclude that further service by that admin would damage the confidence of the community in our processes, ArbCom will do the right thing and tell a steward to turn off the bit. So stonewalling and not compromising over the 80-85 numbers to me seems to be not worth a lot more time. I think going with either number, with a personal preference for 85%, and doing so today, is the best step we can take to conclude this phase and move forward. How about that? Sswonk (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the alternative "None" has been argued effectively by Jehochman, but I think that would be viewed as ignoring several months work. None, as a common sense simplification, is reasonable but I don't think it is a consensus number based on the months of discussion and the recent VOTE 2, so therefor I don't think it should be debated or considered as a reasonable final result of this topic, despite the arguments Jehochman or others can make or has made. I think a "guideline" of 85% should be an attainable consensus among those of us who are left debating this today. Sswonk (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the actual language. It already has language indicating that, whatever the number, it is only a guideline and not an automatic trigger. Please, let's discuss what is actually on the table, not misconceptions arising from earlier misconceptions. I'd be fine with putting the word "approximately" before both of the percentage numbers. But, for the reasons I've already stated multiple times, I'm still for 80%. Please note that the analysis just above could just as well be taken as Ben MacDui 80%, Tryptofish 80%, Matt Lewis 85%, Good Day 85% (but out of objections to hampering Bureaucrat discretion), Sswonk OK with either, and other editors expressing various forms of opposition to the proposal no matter what the number. That parallels very closely the Vote 2 results. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, it's GoodDay & not Good Day gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So sorry. Looks like I'm having a bad day. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, right GoodDay. Won't make that mistake in the future. Sswonk (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No prob guys. PS: I even bloopered it. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I was reiterating the language for the sake of summary, not asking for a change. I know it is intended to be open to interpretation. My question or plea, I imagine it is looking more like a request, is: if it is the case that the number can be viewed as a component rather than as a single defining "make or break" value whereby ArbCom must act, why is a difference of 5% such a deal breaker here on this draft discussion page? I know you have repeatedly stated your opinion. Can you now respond to that specific question, I would appreciate knowing what ultimately is the 5% difference doing to stop you from acquiescence to 85? Sswonk (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It's hard for me to answer that question, the way that it is worded. I could just as well ask you why the 5% would prevent you from acquiescing to 80%. My reasons for feeling strongly are the reasons I stated previously. It's not like there is some new reason for this question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: It's a Bureaucrat, not ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for a one sentence answer, not several paragraphs of what you have written about methods of determining consensus from poll results. It should not be that difficult, and I have already stated (in less than a sentence, twice) a willingness to acquiesce to 80, so to muse about turning the question back on me was frivolous. Repeating the question in a single sentence: Given that the threshold percentage for auto-desysop is a guideline only and not a "make-or-break" number, why is a difference of 5% significant enough for you to withhold agreement to wording that sets that figure at 85%? Sswonk (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Change of request: rather than bothering to answer that question, please see the new subsection to this topic I have added below, entitled "Rational fractions rather than percentages". Sswonk (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 clear risks with using 80% after the poll showed it didn't have consensus;

1) It could (or will) leave the CDA seriously open to criticism for ignoring a clear consensus.

2) It could (or will) justifiably upset all the 90% and 100% voters (who voted 2:1 against 80%), who could actually reflect the wider wishes of the community.

The gamble with sticking with 80% (let's be honest) is guessing that the community in general would be happier with 80. But why gamble at all? There is no risk at all with adjusting to 85%, so we should just do it and be done with it. We can't adjust to VOTE 1 (ie 65%) and not adjust to VOTE 2 at all. Given the results of the poll, I can't imaging anyone reverting an update to 85%.

And yes, this 5.4-based version of CDA is supposed to be all about trusting the Crats, and they will surely be looking to de-sysop an admin that has only 20% of the voters' support. So the exact figure is not so much of a big deal - except if we open the proposal to easy criticism at the community RFC. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rational fractions rather than percentages[edit]

Not being a statistician, I am not sure if that is the best title. But, I am suggesting with the blockquoted revision below that rather than use percentage figures for threshold values, we shift to two easier to envision fractions as guideline numbers: two-thirds for failure of CDA and five-sixths for confirmation of CDA. Just try it out, the prose is the same except for those slightly different but essentially similar numbers:

The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above five-sixths (83.3%) support for removal are passed, while most of those below two-thirds (66.7%) fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.

I am trying this in good faith, shifting the focus to numbers close to 65/85 that are quickly envisioned in the mind. The hope is that it will be enough to finish this portion of the pre-RFC tweaking so further steps toward completion can be dealt with. Sswonk (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First, let me make clear, with respect to what you said before making this suggestion, that I think I have the right to stand by the very careful answers I already gave. It's very difficult for me to reply to a demand that I reduce my answer to one sentence. I infer that you wanted to imply that I am being inflexible, but I reject that characterization of me.
Now, I have a question. What is the rationale behind five-sixths (83.3%), as opposed to eighty-five one-hundredths (85%) or four-fifths (80%)? I'm trying to picture a Bureaucrat dealing with an actual case, and having to think: "hmm, is this 83.2% or 83.4%?" By the time we get to that decimal point, we are undermining what I'm sure is the actual intent: to get away from the constraints of rigid numbers.
Let me reiterate, yet again, my thinking. From where I sit, it feels like I make careful, detailed arguments, then others say "let's just split the difference", then I explain carefully how splitting the difference can lead to unintended bad results, and then others just keep saying "let's just split the difference". Please read bimodal distribution. Normally, as at RfA, when Bureaucrats are asked to make determinations of consensus, they are given a 10-point percentage spread (70%-80% at RfA). If we end up deciding on 65%-80%, that's already 15 points, which goes to 20 if we instead choose 65%-85%. At some point, that stops being useful. Remember, these numbers refer to the "count" after the Crat has already discounted all the invalid !votes and inadequately-justified !votes. After all that, if there is still 81% of the community saying they want to de-sysop, how likely is it that the decision would be that we needed a few more percent to achieve consensus? This discussion has lost track of how consensus is really determined.
The claim keeps coming up that Vote 2 indicated that we need to go to some number like 85 or 83.3 in order for the proposal to be accepted by the community. Not true. The Vote 2 !vote was about equally split between 80%, 90%, and various forms of none-of-the-above, and that was in response to a misleading question that implied that the number would be a rigid constraint. Some of the none-of-the-above !voters will oppose the proposal no matter what, while others just wanted to register disapproval of the (fictional) rigid constraint. Of the 90% !voters, some will oppose the proposal no matter what. Some will support the proposal no matter whether we have 80%, 85%, or something between 80 and 85. The question, then, becomes how many !votes at RfC will we net gain if we go with 85% over 80%, or 83.3% over 80%? I think a careful, intelligent reading of the results indicates that it will be extremely few, and, likewise, extremely few that we will lose if we go with 80%, that we would have gotten if we had only gone with 83.3% or 85%. In my opinion, editors who insist on taking a mean of a bimodal distribution, instead of engaging with what I just said, are the ones who are being inflexible.
So, that said, what am I actually recommending? This:

The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above approximately 80% support for removal are passed, while most of those below approximately 65% fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.

I had previously suggested inserting "approximately" into the language directly before each number, but MacDui reverted me on that. I think this language may more truly represent community consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Reading through [2] again, it seems clear to me that nearly all the 19 people who voted "none" meant it in the sense of 100% (ie - leave it to the Bureaucrats). It was also the only second-place vote used more than once, with 4 10 people using it after giving 90% as a first choice. I personally think that 100% is much closer in intent to 90% than to the lower 80%. 90% isn't necessarily being 'punitive' to the proposers - it is partly a 'no harm done' broadening of the safety/consensus zone, ie why not make it high, or have 'none'?
The top threshold percentage (whether 80%, 85% or whatever) is actually so high, that the important figure is surely the baseline one, where the consensus starts. We all agree that most 80%'s will likely be de-sysoped. My personal ideal is to have a low baseline and simply leave things to the Crats. We are supposed to believe in consensus after all. For me it is simple - it's more of a risk to stick with 80%, than it is to try and catch more voters.
If people actually want CDA, I think we (almost) have a proposal they will vote for - whether the consensus threshold is 80, 83.x or 85. But in terms of 'floating voters', it's always better to be more conservative if you can, I think - another reason for moving towards 90%. The amount of 90% voters in the finalisation poll surprised me (there were 24 at '90%', 25 at '80%' and 20 at 'none' - with 10 second-choices, all of 'none'), and in my mind I just can't ignore them. They could represent more of the wider community than we might think. I urge people to read them again. You could even make quite a sold argument for making the threshold 90%, 85 being too low.
By the way, Dank picked "85%" as his vote, and made a talk page argument for it here - so we should add him to the current 'consensus' figures (it was in the back of my mind at the time to do this). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I've said all I can think of to say. I think that I have completely refuted what you say, but, obviously, I have not convinced you, and you have not convinced me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You hadn't refuted all I've said above at all, although I'll take it that you are now. Looking at them again, I still can't see how we are interpreting the figures so differently. 85% is almost ambiguity adjusted - as I said, there is an argument for using 90% We will clearly have to agree to differ, and just see what other people say. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding reading bimodal distribution, I did and also previously read Tryptofish's earlier writing on the deceptions inherent. IANAS! again, but I think given the questions asked at the poll, !votes from people who oppose overall and the low sample size, if I were a statistician I would throw the poll (VOTE 2) to the wind. It is fairly characterized as flawed. My point is that, since were are speaking in terms of generalities, guidelines, rule-of-thumb, and so on, then using a hard percentage figure is being more inflexible than is needed, despite the wording of the paragraph in question. I am suggesting, through simplification of the language, we stop saying (colloquially) "the votes should be counted, then in general be either above X exact number to pass or below Y exact number to fail." Instead, more in the spirit of offering a general approximation, we use very simple, easy to understand common fractions. I will even reduce it to a simple ratio, using T's above blockquoted text but with the numbers for two-thirds and five-sixths given as a ratio:

The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above approximately 5:1 support for removal are passed, while most of those below approximately 2:1 fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.

The change I am suggesting is an effort to show that, without being excruciatingly fine about how we interpret a flawed poll, we can come to figures that both come close to approximating both views (Matt and Tryptofish) of what VOTE 2 meant and also be true to the spirit of allowing discretion. Substitute 4:1 for 5:1 above, you have 80%. There is no convenient ratio for 65%, it is 13:7 which, of course, would be viewed as entirely too fine. Can you see that what I am trying to do is remove rigidity from the overall tone of the sentence, rather than have the contrast of flexibility ("As a general descriptive rule of thumb...") with rigidity ("above 80%"..."below 65%") within the same sentence?

What I am looking toward is the publication of the CDA after it passes the RFC. There, using the best, clearest language we can come up with will strengthen the meaning of the words. I am afraid too much time is being spent here worrying about how to please voters in the RFC, and not enough on the actual spirit of the living document when it passes. Imaging trying to explain what the numbers mean to a new friend you just met in a pub. In the simplest layman's terms, you tell the new friend "Most of the time, if the guy gets voted against five to one, he's out. But if the ones who want him out can't get two to one votes against him, he stays. But, the judge also listens to the arguments and sometimes it's his call either way." Try explaining it a different way, involving polls and bimodal distributions and ... wait, you've lost him. He represents the busy editors and bureaucrats who will be using the document as a guide, that is who we need to guide with truly meaningful language, not each other here.

So, the spread between 2:1 and 5:1 is in decimal notation (83.3 - 66.7 = 16.6), and between 2:1 and 4:1 is (80.0 - 66.7 = 13.3). Neither of those spreads is 20%, and both to me are close enough to Tryptofish's 15% spread maximum, as approximate, "descriptive rule of thumb" numbers, to be effective once CDA is actually in place. Enough people did show a preference for "None" that I am keeping 5:1 as my first choice.

I know not every person in the world is reasonable, so some future sysop might fight tooth and nail to stay on even if over 2:1 editors think he shouldn't. But I think there is a benefit to having these fine officeholders realize that, if two out of every three people are against their service, they should start looking for something else to do on Wikipedia. And, as clearly as I can state it, I think having simple, everyday numbers like "two-to-one" in mind will help keep potential future candidates for CDA from making too many enemies. Is another week going to pass without resolution of this simple dilemma? I am seeking to have everyone look at the figures as they are purported to be in the opening of the sentence: a "general descriptive rule of thumb". This continued discussion of polling, analysis and tug-of-war over exact percentages says to me that the words are meant to be less general than the reader is led to believe. I think final passage will be assisted by leaving out exact numbers and instead giving simple ratios, preceded by the word approximately as in the latest suggested revision I posted above. Sswonk (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are good insights. I support the version by Sswonk here. I would also support with 4:1, but I think that wording it this way makes it less problematic either way (by making it less obviously a matter of hitting a particular percentage, even though I fully realize that the ratios compute out to the same percentages: what's different is the way that it reads, as truly a guide and not as a cutoff). Thank you for thinking of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the consensus margin figures have real psychological and emotional value to people, and people will simply want to see them in percentage form. In his voting comment, Tryptofish said he found "above 80% to be completely unacceptable". Why? It's because he doesn't want to give the message to admin that the community cannot directly vote them out, or give the message to editors that they can't have an immediate effect themselves. He also doesn't want to change the original proposal too much. I understand where he is coming from on the first points, but he can't just ignore what's in front of him. Ignoring the finalisation poll is a huge risk, and his interpretation is just too wilfully blinkered. There was no outright consensus (we have to agree on that), so we have to find one. The mean the poll is actually around 90%, and I think the fair adjustment is at 85% (some might say it is higher).

Going on about statistic abuse is I think is just stonewalling the inevitable, and I find it a bit personal too because I'm not stupid, and I'm not abusing, misusing or ignoring anything. The poll wasn't that ambiguous, and the voting comments were pretty clear: 'none' meant 100% in every 'none' vote (whether first or second-choice) that there was. With these figures;

80% (26+1 second-choice vote), 85% (1 voter-created vote), 90% (24+1 second-choice vote), 100% (20+10 second-choice votes),

we simply have to adjust appropriately and find the compromise figure that is likely to meet consensus. Look at the [[4]] and read the comments. How can it be less than 85%? I'm not into switching to ratios like 5:1 just to compromise with an untenable (and unsupported) position. All Tryptofish has here is the ability to click undo, which is everything and nothing on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this (I've carefully looked at the results again and adjusted the figures) - the more I think that 90% is the truly reflective mean. Are we asking for 85% because it is a compromise with one man who simply won't budge? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Matt, will you comment on my latest revision, blockquoted above? Please read that and my surrounding explanation, the 5:1 ratio is not an effort to create a compromise amount for the numbers but to rather to keep from compromising the spirit of the prose in the CDA policy. I urge you to take your time, but not too much time, and realize that what I am offering is still telling administrators that they can and will be ousted by the community, and nearly automatically when five out of six editors vote to do so at a CDA nomination. The confusion surrounding the meaning of the question for VOTE 2 was real, I'm afraid. This wording, which has Tryptofish's support, promises everything hard percentages promise, without again reopening the obvious hurtful discourse between you and him. Please don't jump back like magnets of the same polar alignment in opposition to what is a good faith effort to conclude this fragment of the overall document. What matters most is that the community can and will control the future of bad administrators for life who deserve to be removed, not fine tuning a number. Sswonk (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I did read both, and hope I didn't appear 'off' with you. Your ratio suggestion wasn't strictly a "compromise" in itself, ok (5:1 etc give broadly the same results), but you wouldn't have suggested it if Tryptofish wasn't digging his heels - before it you agreed with 85% And I do genuinely feel that people will expect and want percentages, for the reasons I give above.
I actually missed Tryptofish's reply to your suggestion somehow when I made my own reply (I'm having lots of breaks between editing), but reading it now, I think he might see it as a compromise, where I think we need to stick to what we have, and adjust to 85 or 90% Nobody counted the second-choice votes properly in VOTE 2 - doing it now I realise that 10 people actually gave 'none'! They all seem to suggest that 100% (the Bureaucrat decides) was the understood meaning of 'none'. Hardly any votes were left without comment. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: the phrasing of VOTE 2: where in the poll do you see the confusion, and how would you personally adjust for it? Matt Lewis (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The question was: "Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?" Unfortunately, the commas are there representing but one way to interpret the question. Is it a question of "threshold" versus "no threshold", is it "80%, 90% or 100%, please choose one", or is it "We haven't figured out whether to use 80 or 90, in the meantime should there be a threshold or not?" I have stated before, forensics on the question and the results are long since past worth doing. I also stated, in so many words, that what was clear to me was that, given the original intent to have a threshold, and using language that calls any number a "rule-of-thumb", we can forget about finding a hard number from the poll. Rather, we can use language to show that, as in any debate in any situation in life save where unanimous consent is required, if someone is opposed by 5 out of 6 people they will almost surely lose and so is the case with CDA. The power of the simple ratio is that it is not some number that can be debated over and over as you and Tryptofish have done. In fact, although you say I wouldn't have suggested a ratio without his digging in of heels, I have been looking for a different route than the use of percentages since the beginning of this topic. The exact words took a while, but using the universally understood simple ratios of 2:1 as a trigger to pass a CDA, and 5:1 to pretty much guarantee it, seems very compelling to me in light of all of the questions that can be raised about the polling and the interpretation of results. It's a leap out of the loop into a new meaning of the thrust of the sentence. Sometimes, that has to be done to show seriousness of intent. I would not adjust for confusion, to me that is like asking one to capture smoke in a hand to keep from breathing it. Rather, I'd wave the smoke away and breathe fresh air. Sswonk (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that people are going to want what they are used to though? I appreciate you working on the idea, but I just can't see using ratios getting public support. Percentages are simply what Wikipedia use. Some people can't work ratios out too.
Where in VOTE 3 2 can you see evidence of people misunderstang the question? I can't find any. I think your first two interpretations of the question amount to the same thing, and the third interpretation I can't believe anyone would have stuck with, even if it crossed their mind. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean VOTE 2, as VOTE 3 was "Would you support a two-phase poll at RfC?". There is no way to know, and it is a bad idea to attempt to know, what people thought as they read it. There is obviously a mixture of anger, equivocation, surety and lack thereof to be found in any such comments by any given observer in any poll. It is as subject to interpretation and personal opinion as are the numbers, which two intelligent editors here continue to debate. What I can offer is that having first said "Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement." and then that the numbers are to be used "as a general descriptive rule of thumb" at the beginning of the next sentence, giving simple ratios reinforces, rather than contrasts or conflicts, with those thoughts. Taking several days to hammer out a hard percentage, with little hope for a meeting of the minds in sight right now, is a symptom of the inherent conflict within a sentence with two opposing spirits. Matt, percentages are not "simply" what Wikipedia uses. When it comes down to the granting of privilege bits in this realm high above "autoconfirmed" status, quality of work and community consensus are used as well. So, why deny that and continue to hold hard to the need for a specific figure, when the wording itself already recommends wisdom over raw counts? Sswonk (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You must understand my frustration in seeing you fully back the adjustment to 85%, and then changing tack to proposing that we use 83.x% written as 5:1. It was at least in part prompted by Tryptofish (who has said that he is against moving above 80% under any circumstances) dragging his feet. I'm an editor who can get things working by not bending too easily from what is best, and it is my right not to veer from what I can see is the clear and correct approach. You had to settle on 83.x% at 5:1 as you could not express 85% as a simple ratio. It's a neat idea for sure (with a sound ideal about figures not having to matter), but in my view is an un-needed compromise, and it won't gain support. People will expect and want percentages.
If Tryptofish (probably the dominant presence over CDA taken as a whole) is willing to move from 80% to 83.x% (albeit expressed as 5:1), then he can surely accept 85%. You must appreciate that my opinions on using ratios are honest ones - I'm not just matiching Tryptofish's stubbornness myself! You could test consensus by attempting to add it to the CDA if you want - I'll give it a little while before making any revision of my own. We need to do something soon I think, as we've spent ages of this already. I don't understand why it is a "bad idea" to even attempt to know how people interpreted the poll question, and I'm prepared to send out messages to all the 'none' voters asking for clarification too. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In brief, I have read all talk, and I continue to have high enthusiasm for Sswonk's very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is to use ratios instead of percentages (5:1 equalling 63.x%). I'm against it for the reasons I give in the section below. Does anyone else agree or disagree with the idea? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Break: Do we use a 80%, 85% or 90% threshold, or use a ratio, like 5:1?[edit]

I have 6 valid points:

5) Look at the figures:

80% (26+1 second-choice vote)
85% (1 voter-created vote)
90% (24+1 second-choice vote)
100% (20+10 second-choice votes) - vote was described as "none", not "100%".

1) 85% is actually an adjustment downwards of the average. As I've always said, 85% is already a cautious adjustment. What would be a simple ratio for 90%? There is a very strong argument for using that.

2) We cannot discount all the 'none' votes because the poll question was hypothetically ambiguous (as has been suggested). Examples have to be provided where a voter has misunderstood it. It seems clear to me that nobody actually did. I will send a message asking for clarification to everyone who voted for 'none', if we can't resolve this soon. I urge people to read through all the 'none' vote comments (in VOTE 2) again: most of them referred to trusting the Bureaucrat decision (or gave some similar clarifying comment), or were "per" someone who did. These were not dippy voters, they were largely admin and previously-involved editors who tend to explain their actions (and did).

3) We mustn't forget that the fair average of the broadly 1:1:1 split-votes is more like 90% (ie the middle of 80%, 90% and 100%), and I'm getting more and more worried by that fact every time I look at it. But I do still think that 85% is a fair reflection of people's wishes, and will go un-criticised at the community vote - whereas going with 80% or 5:1 is inviting valid complaints, which (along with the resultant "per" votes) can fast-dismantle these kind of attempts at new 'policy'. We have to poll a watertight proposal.

4) Are there actually set definitions for reading ratios? How will people interpret 5:1? Will they get the idea it is around 83.3%? At first look it seems to be 80%. 85% (or even 90%) cannot actually be expressed as a simple ratio. They are more complicated than they look! I think that transparency matters a lot, despite the (valid) argument that it is probably better not to focus on figures. People simply want to - it's human nature.

5) I honestly cannot imagine many admin/arbs/crats or many editors wanting to see 5:1 over a clear percentage. I don't think we should change from the percentage format that we've had all along, unless we absolutely need to and there is a decent consensus for doing so too.

6) If we don't resolve this soon, am prepared to put the above figures (along with all the VOTE 2 results and the corresponding vote comments) to a Request For Comment, where non-involved people could easy recommend using 90%. I suggest we use 85%, frankly, while we still can.

Matt Lewis (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, with respect, my observation after reading this is that you have utterly missed the point of my suggested resolution of this issue by using simple, low number ratios. Honestly, I would rather have not even visited this page at this point, now that you have placed the threat of holding yet another vote, with the requisite further debate over the efficacy of the question and the attempts to interpret the thoughts of the voters. If someone can't understand what 5:1 means, I doubt if they would even be able to edit a single word, let alone become an office holder here on Wikipedia. Using a small number ratio such as this is among one of the most basic ways of stating a "go-no go" result. It matches the phrase "a general descriptive rule of thumb" in tone and meaning. You are splitting hairs when you fight for a percentage 1.67 points higher, and you are not describing a "general descriptive rule of thumb" with such a fine distinction. Please re-read the reasons, and by the way, I have said I would support either 80 or 85, because I know that if an administrator is ineffective enough to have 50 editors sign a petition against him and cannot clear even 70% of a vote, he should either in good faith resign or be removed for acting in self-serving way by not resigning. Anyone who gets a disapproval vote within a couple of points of 80 either way is going to be gone. The more you fight over this, the more people, including myself, will lose interest in the entire process. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Please reconsider your position. Sswonk (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Coming back to this page after being away briefly, it strikes me that the discussion, broadly and throughout the talk page, is now coming down to editors who sincerely oppose the whole idea of CDA and who will oppose it at RfC, and to editors arguing more about personal ego issues than about substance. I hope that editors like Sswonk and many others will not get distracted by any of that, and realize that we are getting close to having a proposal that will be ready to put before the community, and there is every reason to be enthusiastic about supporting it. Discussing things on a Wiki (pipe link to sausage-making) is inherently messy and sometimes ugly, but that is not a reason to feel discouraged. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, who could that be about? I've disagreed with you often Tryptofish, but I've never once mentioned your own ego. Only you and Swonk have supported using ratios, so you'll need to do more than suggest I am arguing only out of pride to get them into the CDA proposal. If I didn't see compelling arguments against using ratios, I'd put them into the CDA proposal myself. But my arguments unfortunately have substance, and it just wrong of you to say they don't. WP:AGF. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to argue against using 5:1 Sswonk, as although only you and Tryptofish have so far spoken for it, both of are stong voices who have edited the CDA proposal on the threshold matter. I don't like to see it as me "fighting" - to me it's more about not losing focus! Please don't think that I do not understand your reasoning. I know that isn't the 'point', but before I made my last comment above, I actually used my PC calculator to double check that 5:1 wasn't 80%. I did this, even though I had already done it only the day before. Ratios are misleadingly simple-looking if you are trying to convert it in your head to a percentage. People might be tempted to think; 5:1 = 100(5x20):20 = 80%. You simply have to use a calculator to see that 5:1 equates to 83.3%. I understand that 5:1 avoids needing to use exact figures, and that exact figures are not theoretically needed, but I still think that people will instinctively be trying to look for percentages in their heads. And I think people will be asking at the community poll why percentages were not used. I can't imagine the reverse being true, so why take the risk?
I would agree that offering exact figures (even as percentages) is not absolutely necessary though (it is all 'rule of thumb' after all), and I've proposed another non-exact solution in response to FT2's analysis of VOTE 2 in [this] new section above. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Useless, More Useless, or Uber Useless[edit]

Nobody is ever going to reach these thresholds. They'll be desysopped through existing processes long before any CDA is satisfied. CDA will just lead to abuse of process against admins who work in controversial areas. It's all costs, and no benefits. Jehochman Brrr 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeepers, you're dampening my morale. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern about the "good standing" definition[edit]

Extended content

Following up on my comments above (q.v.) regarding my concern about the provision that to be "in good standing" to sign a recall petition, a user would be required not to be under an ArbCom sanction. From my perspective as an arbitrator, this is not a desirable definition and could interfere with the arbitration process, as follows:

1. When ArbCom imposes a sanction (or when our predecessors did), we do so for the purpose of addressing a specific problematic behavior the editor in question is engaging in. Except in cases where we ban someone completely, we are not purporting to evaluate editors' overall value to Wikipedia. We have no mandate to divide the universe of editors into two categories, one in good standing and one not, and our remedies and sanctions are not crafted with this sort of distinction in mind.

2. It is not clear what "under an arbcom sanction" actually means. If a user is topic-banned from a given topic or put under a revert restriction or a civility restriction, presumably that's a sanction. What if we "admonish" or "warn" or "remind" a user to abide by policy? Is that a sanction? If so, for how long is it considered in effect? We sometimes impose a topic-ban or 1RR for a finite time period, but no one is ever "admonished for one year." So ironically, the least severe sanctions would be the ones that would affect a user's "good standing" forever. Similarly, is an administrator who is instructed not to use the tools in a particular topic area or against a particular user under a "sanction"? He or she still has more access and could be considered more trusted than another user who is not an administrator at all....

3. As the question of who is or is not "in good standing" comes to a head, the ArbCom would start to receive requests to vacate sanctions imposed long ago, which otherwise are not causing any problems. Suppose that in 2006, an editor was editing problematically on Topic X and as a result we banned him or her from Topic X. The editor has come to accept that he is too emotionally involved in Topic X, and now edits without any problems on Topics Y and Z. We would now be faced with a request by that editor to lift the topic ban, not because he or she wants to edit on X again, but simply to avoid the "bad standing" taint—particularly, when someone inevitably starts to compile "Wikipedia:List of users considered not in good standing." The result could be the continued re-airing of otherwise long-forgotten grievances.

I could go on in this vein, but I think I've illustrated my main concerns. If this proposal goes forward at all (which personally I do not favor, see above), I think the "good standing" definition should be modified to address these thoughts. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing that insight. That's exactly the kind of feedback that is very helpful in improving this proposal. First, here is the current wording (which can be found here) of the passage in question, referring to the requirements for the ten editors making a nomination for CDA:
  • may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions, Arbitration Committee restrictions, or Community restrictions, including, but not limited to, topic bans, project bans, and paroles without the permission of the Arbitration Committee or another person or group empowered to lift those restrictions.
And here is the current language referring to who may !vote in the process, after the nomination is certified:
Anyone may participate in the discussion.
Civil, relevant, discussion, based upon our policies and guidelines, is welcome from any editor in the community, whether with or without an account. However, disruptive comments, and contributions by sockpuppets, banned users, or blocked users (unless blocked by the administrator being reviewed and when the CDA is materially related to that block) are not permitted and will be stricken.
Thus, I don't really think it is the case that the current draft of the proposal says that persons "under ArbCom sanctions" are in any way prevented from signing the eventual !vote, only the initial nomination. I've had the sense that the community really does want to make it difficult for someone who is "just getting back" at an administrator to be able to make a nomination, and the language in the first passage only restricts persons who would be among the ten nominators, while it does nothing to prevent such a person from !voting on a nomination once it is certified. In that regard, one perspective might be that it's not that harsh a constraint, simply to be unable to nominate an administrator, while still being able to try to convince an editor "in good standing" to do so. On the other hand, maybe this language (in the first passage) does not make sense in its present form, for the reasons indicated. Should some words be added to the passage above, to restrict the ArbCom-related language to apply only to ArbCom actions that would create a COI for that particular editor with respect to the nomination? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, any editor-in-question who's had a difficult past with a particular administrator, that editor most be barred from 'voting' in a recall of that administrator. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a change in wording? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If that's required, yes. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not required, and it will break CdA into tiny peices if we go this way. We have 8 often-stringent safeguards already (See the FAQ). I've answered this below where you raised it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thought occurs to me. The "editor in good standing" wording comes from the original draft by Uncle G. NYB's comment makes me wonder whether it can create a misimpression. The intention is that it only means "in good standing for the purposes of the CDA process", not that it is some kind of global classification of Wikipedia editors into good and bad categories. Is that intention unclear? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming it means, editors with little or no 'block' history (including editors who's block's' were successfully appealed). Even editors whose blocks were successfully appealed, might still have a grudge against an adiministrator. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The current language is here. If there are going to be wording changes, now is the time to propose them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the "difficult past" (ie the "bad standing")? Editors who have been previously blocked by the admin under CdA? There are 8 effective safeguards in the CdA process to guard against the wrong outcome, some of them really stringent. The huge benefit of that is that anyone can open a CdA (with 9 other people, etc etc etc). If we mess with that now, we will create something so select it it will be worthless in my opinion. And wayward admin could be tempted to 'tarnish' people in order to prevent a CdA against them happening. I presented a number of reasons on the CDA page on this subject, and will move them below with my next edit.
In my view, the words "Good standing" simply refer to the highly-stringent 'editor of 3 months and 500 edits' clause (ie editors who have proved themselves not to be typical single-purpose sockpuppets etc). We cannot add an extra punishment to people already judged - they have already had 'fair' terms set out: CdA cannot and should not mess with that. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The necessity of 10 CDA nominators is sufficient for me. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, 10 editors of 3 months is more than enough. The 50 support voters (reaching a 65%-ish baseline percantage of the overall vote) is the main deciding matter. But why agree to Elonka's stringent additions below if you think 10 editors is sufficient? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Got a tad over my head, there. These are complex discussions for me, but I'm catching on. I'm putting mor faith in the community, no longer see a need for Elonka's amendments. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(the following 3 comments have been moved here from Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship)

For the definition of editors in "Good standing", I would recommend adding the following elements:

  • No de-sysopped admins
  • No record of abusive sockpuppetry
  • No admin-issued warnings for harassment
  • No (unoverturned) blocks within the last year

Thoughts? --Elonka 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes blocks (like 1RR for example) are actually quite hard to 'navigate' around in certain areas of Wikipedia - if you are are a content-keen editor anyway. This is especially true in places where admin themselves are 'involved', and in some matters of course it is well-nigh impossible not to be - although many admin are content editors too, which causes no end of problems when POV issues arise. If an admin suspected he might be put up for a CDA, then he/she could find a way to block that person. In some cases, this could be achieved fairly easily, if the worried admin is fortunate enough. We have to think of worse-case scenarios here, and these thing can be done. More likely though: blocking Admin could end up being routinely accused of "avoiding CDA" after certain blocks, as it would be an easy accusation to make. Hiding behind the scorn placed on this would be a certain amount of cases where the accusation is true.
I think I may have told you my own feelings on the way I feel blocks can be prepared by some admin (or 'laid up') with the intention of eventually removing problematic editors. A number of admin seem to build on each futher block they give (or spot that others have given), in a way in which no other legal system in the civilised world would allow. For some editors, after a point blocks simply lose their potency on certain editors: having worked on the 'troubles' I know you will have seen that happen.
Also, it could be argued that not being able to contribute to opening a CDA is like a further punishment for whatever the block was for. Is that fair? Blocks are supposed to be the punishment - and they are quite upsetting for most people (those who have not been in-sensitised to them in some way). Most people do not intend to get another, whether another happens or not. This issue of 'forgiveness' (or simply just punishment paid) probably should go for de-sysoped admin too. I read somewhere that 'forgiveness' was supposed to be a tenet of Wikipedia.
Excluding people with a warning for 'harassment' could be too ambiguous - and I would to stretch that to a block, simply because (so sadly) some admin simply block too easily, and not everyone appeals - some just take a break in disgust. That different way different admin block (or don't block) really makes having too many 'exclusion' rules like this problematic. We do have all those other safeguards however!
I do think, though, that we should draw a select list of specific blocks being in the exclusion list - and sockpuppetry for a few months could perhaps be a good one. I'm no fan of sock users at all (it's just plain cheating), but it is surprising the amount of reformed ones there are around. Again - we have the problem of the 'crime' being already paid for, and the possibiliy (however remote) of vulnerability and unfairness arousing from being excluded from opening a CDA.
A side effect of being excluded could be for editors to just go looking for others to place an opeining vote for them. And who could blame them, if they really felt it had to be done?
Much has been said about admin having "bad days" and not deserving to be strung up for it (and CDA asfeguards should prevent that), but what about editors losing their temper perhaps, and occurring a block? Should they then have further exclusions to their wiki life? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a tricky issue, and whilst I am somewhat in agreement with Matt, there is scope for tightening the definition, provided the wording can be unambiguous. For example how would you define "No record of abusive sockpuppetry"? Ben MacDui 13:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll go along with Elonka's additions. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Those 8 proposed safeguards are sufficient, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Another option would be to define the "spirit" of good standing, and then let bureaucrats exercise their famed discretion as to whether or not that standard has been met. Explicit conditions are likely to be a turn-off to editors who perceive CDA to be needlessly bureaucratic[sic], and may encourage gaming and a lawyering mentality. Just a thought, and I am happy to go along with conditions if that's what we decide.  Skomorokh  21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • This proposal ("editors in good standing") is an invitation to endless wikilawyering. It is going to be rejected. A better substitute would be to rely on our existing RFC process which already spells out who can participate and how. Bureaucrats are clueful enough to discount the votes of grudgemongers, haters, and troublemakers. Jehochman Brrr 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove the words "in good standing". We have plenty of other safeguards. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like some of this discussion is arguing over "changing" wording that actually is not even there. Please see what the proposal actually says, and focus on suggesting better wording, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What words are you alluding to? "in good standing" is in there 4 times, though I'll have a go at removing it now. People can revert if they really want too. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What wording were you (collectively) alluding to? That was my point. Actually, I have no problem with "good standing". I was raising the question to see if it were an issue, and so far I'm not convinced that it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Making the change[edit]

OK, I made some changes to the CDA proposal, addressing the above comments (diff here). A lot of what I did in the edit was cosmetic (I've tried to make it more readable), but I've also;

1) Removed all occurances of "in good standing".

2) Softened all the safeguards surrounding arb sanctions etc (per NYBrad above). I'm not sure we need to say much at all, but the new parag I'm proposing (and actually placed in) is this:

"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(s) to be found."

Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something, and I am not sure if it isn't a "separated by a common language" issue. In my American English vocabulary, the "nominee" is the person being nominated, thus a given questionable sysop (a candidate for desysopping?) would be the nominee. The 10 editors would be the "nominators". Has this been discussed, I'm not clear on why the word "nominee" is used in that way? Sswonk (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Good spot. It was my mistake, and it's passed a few of by. I've changed to nominator. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
To Matt: I agree with you that we need to take the time to incorporate changes in wording in response to what Brad said. But I'm not sure that I agree with you about the specifics, and we need to look carefully and thoughtfully at the huge flood of edits to the proposal page that just happened in the past twelve hours.
Please do so - this is how it has to work now, as we need to get edits down and then work at them. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
To Sswonk: Unless I'm missing something, yes, the language (unless it just got messed up in the last few hours!) does use "nominee" to refer to the administrator and "nominators" to refer to the ten editors making the nominations. (If it's been messed up, that will need to be repaired.)
Matt fixed the passage a little less than an hour ago[5]. The quote above still shows the wrong language, though. Sswonk (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
To Ben MacDui: Although I'm very sympathetic to the argument that further delay just means more of the counter-productive fiddling that is breaking out, I think that, for exactly these reasons, let's proceed carefully, no rush. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits have taken things forward, and have cleared up, brought to light, and in places resolved various issues. We have a clearer CDA to all edit now too. Let's all try not to be so delicate, we are not too far off now! Matt Lewis (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The final stages (summary of poll results)[edit]

I have now added a summary of the poll results at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Pre RfC Summaries#Results of Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. It is a combination of my original analysis and Tryptofish's detailed results for Votes 1 and 2 (somewhat simplified), which I can reconcile with my own +/- one !vote here or there. If there are queries I suggest discussing this subject there rather than here. Ben MacDui 20:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to add the second-choice figure list. I'll also present the second-choices in a table, next to their corresonding first choices, so we can see the direction in people's minds. Like you pointed out, they kind of gravitate to the mid sixties from both extremes. The point of polling second choice was to add this extra dimension, so we need to present it to some degree. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't beleive there is any need for that at all - it conveys very little information and it is linked back here if anyone is curious. Ben MacDui 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree - but don't worry, I'll do it. It's only a simple list and table and won't it won't harm anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
See also skewness risk for why I say it's bogus to report means. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have - but I can't see why we have to avoid anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now added the proposed wording of the description of consensus as per the above to the Guide. If there are queries I suggest discussing this subject there rather than here. I have also removed the link back to this page that existed there.

There seems a weariness here for reasons that are quite understandable. I have a few more things on the to do list, but in all candour I think the work of this page is done now. I make no specific predictions about when the RfC will go live, having been proved wrong before. I do however think it will be soon. Whilst I am sure we will all meet again elsewhere in the near future, I'd like to thank everyone for their patience and (all things considered) their restraint. May the most beneficial outcome for this extraordinary encyclopedic experiment win the day. Ben MacDui 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that the newer people are not so weary. We still have quite a lot to do: 1) decide on the baseline percentage (and the wording of it). 2) update aspects of the original proposal - esp on the "mirror RfA" matter (surely misleading with all these safeguards? (discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship), and on the quite-serious "editor in good standing" matter.
It could all be agreed quite quickly of course, but it could also take time. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a big problem here that certain people have come to own the process by attrition. By dragging out the conversation long enough editors with differing views are worn down until they lose interest. This will become apparent when the proposal goes forward, and get shot down by all the people who were excluded from the drafting. Jehochman Brrr 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there has been elements of attrition (which were often unavoidable), but with only a small amount of care at this crucial final stage we can de-fuel those charges (or we can rush to the RfC and super-charge them). Unfortunately, imho, the length of all this could not have been avoided. Therefore we have to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost interest, and make sure we are as fair as can be by all (even if that turns out to be just calmly dotting every 'i' before the RfC). Even appearing to rush this is suicidal imo. A couple of people deciding on an 80% threshold for 'auto-desysop' when more people voted for 90%-100% definitely needs further discussion. I'm inclined to accept it - but it just looks so much like railroading against consensus. And in a way, it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As you know, I am certain that this situation was entirely avoidable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) If you didn't know, then that's part of the explanation ;-)
But as who knows though? Us? If you want to open up be my guest.. I'm beginning to think we need some kind of 'state of play' statements form people: What would you like to see done right now? (please try not to be sarcastic). Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Eh? It's all in the archives, FWIW. And I try to avoid sarcasm online, because sarcasm doesn't carry in text. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was fully serious about asking various CDA critics "What would you like to see done at this moment in time? (please try not to be sarcastic, or go on about the past)"! Maybe you would repond? I'm afraid the many archives here are pretty meaningless at this stage - people just have to accept that. We need to work from now.
I asked you "who is us" because I'm tired of being bundled in with this (seriously over-played) 'evil railroad group'. Can't people see this process is just Wikipedia working as it always does? Things eventually happen, so we deal with them. Wikipedia can't stand still - not if the matter proves to be strong enough. And 'Admin Recall' clearly is strong enough. I've been called "you" on this page as if I've made every poll CDA has ever seen! It not just a 'generic you', it is genuinely illogical thinking. Many of the vocal critics of CDA (as a process, or of the so-called 'handling' of it) seem to assume a singular 'machine' is at work against them, while they fail to see their own fault in not doing enough, providing enough, arguing well enough (or at all), or just giving up, or not getting back in (like in in early Jan). Critics should be fighting their cause with arguments, not sarcasm or generalised attacks using a cover-all "you". I notice that you have been complaining that the 'you machine' has not asked you for your opinion. There is no 'you machine' to ask you! I'm moving your "A simple model" section below up to the section on the poll readings. I cannot see anything productive about it at all. You placed a completely abstract (and not short at all) hypthetical poll into the middle of the post-poll debate, and gave the reader nothing at all on how to read it, or what you want from it. That can easily be seen as a sarcastic form of trolling. The finalisation poll happened (and things happen..), so please try and deal with that.
Regarding sarcasm in general, I've no respect for people who simply stop commenting seriously and turn to it. People like that may as well leave the topic, or go to Wikipedia Review. If people have something to say, I wish they could say it straight, and stick at it for new people like me (and I'm not in a hurry to do anything). What I've seen is a lot of hot air, some rather miserly snippets, but few genuinely informative or constructive comments. It's a very aloof and unhelpful position to taken for people claiming to want what's best. Nothing is set in stone. If people want change, they have to stand up (or stand in line) and call for it. Not butter the behind of the nearest trolling Tom, but be considered, informative and constructive: that way you get attention and respect.
What are some people actually trying to railroad this? The 'Motion to Close' in December could have been a really constructive thing, instead it was an immensely rude, bad faith and non-constructive (ie destructive) thing to do. I came along at that time and was appalled by it, finding it one of the most cynical and misjudged things I've seen on Wikipedia. If there is any reason for the railroading attitude of a few editors here, it is in no-doubt largely because that dreadful “Let's try and kill this rubbish now” poll genuinely upset them so much. As it happens, I'm really embarrassed by the "Let's just get this through" attitude here sometimes, but when I think of it in the light of that closing poll, I can hardly blame people. The principal proponent for rushing CDA through is the person who helped saved CDA from the 'close it' poll by advertising it to people - I think that says a lot. Whatever form of CDA goes to the community at RfC, I'm not letting anyone criticise it in the non-constructive, non-collaborative and ABF manner I've seen this January, without making a serious comment on them. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to write a nice response, be it somewhat strict, but I deleted that comment. On rereading, I do not find your conduct acceptable.
To start with, if you had done me the courtesy of reading what I have actually written in the archives, you would have found that I have already pledged to act in a constructive manner on this page.
When I refer to you as "you", I am referring to Matt Lewis. You are personally responsible for everything that happens here; as am I. We are both participants in this discussion.
That's another point I would like to make here I am not a "critic" and you are not a "defender", and I deeply resent your trying to create this false dichotomy. We are here to work on a project together constructively, NOT to make war.
Now to some extent, I can understand you might be becoming somewhat defensive and emotional, but that is not how debates should be held. Take your time to calm down before you post.
Now all of the above, I can live with, and I would be willing sort things out with you and get back to doing useful things.
However, recently, I made a mathematical post on poll interpretation in the case of linked polls. In linked polls, it's fairly important to be aware of linked questions, and to ensure you don't end up with nonsensical, broken answers. Since this wikiproject is using a lot of polls with linked questions, I would say it is fairly relevant ;-)
Now folks going "Hey, actually we weren't planning on any further linked polls, so we'll keep this around for next time" - sure, I get that, that's fair enough.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure how it is possible to troll using mathematical models, from a logical point of view.
Apparently you do not share this uncertainty; and I think this is because you have become too emotional and too attached to this wikiproject, and respectfully I think it's because you are no longer thinking straight.
This is not healthy. It is no good for you, and it is exceptionally damaging to the project.
So with all due respect to your undoubtedly good faith efforts, I'm going to recommend that you leave the project for now and go do something else instead.
In the hope you take this the right way, --15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The above comment by me sounded a great deal more personally critical of you yourself than it was at all intended to be (I don't think you are a troll!). The points were general ones, and I was clearly pissed off when I wrote it - but I wouldn't be the first to do that in here by a long shot. I am sure you are just editing in the way you normally do, but I've taken a lot of flak on CDA from people who I don't think are here to be helpful. Or were here to be helpful - CDA is looking a much better prosepect now, and I'm always willing to re-address people based purely on content matters. Sorry if I lumped you in with others (or other attitudes) that have got a bit under my skin. I've done a lot (imo) for CDA however, and I'm not going to drop out from it now! Matt Lewis (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Need to announce[edit]

Among the essential final tasks is putting a notice of the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. We should make sure we agree on the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to make this the last thing we do. It could look like we are running ahead of ourselves if we do it beforehand. Best thing is to work on it offline I think, or in a sandbox. (unless there are specifically important things about it we need to discuss now). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with that. I just want to make sure that we don't overlook doing it, since it is so very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion, just a suggestion, for the wording:

A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy. You are invited to join the discussion.

The first link would go to the CDA Guide page. The second link would go to the top of the page where the poll is being conducted (note that, per the concerns raised in this talk by Ten-of-all-Trades, that link should go to the top of the page, not to where the poll begins on the page). Thoughts, revisions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about poll format[edit]

I trust that at the adoption vote itself there will be ample space allotted for people who oppose the proposal to present their arguments before the voting sections? In the interest of fairness, objections should not be shuffled off to an archive or subpage, and the proposal's proponents have (and continue to have) ample space to argue their case. Moreover, proponents have full control of the proposal itself, its self-serving FAQ, and this talk page. I wouldn't object to using collapsed sections or the like to limit the screen size of any such text, but the final vote may be the only opportunity that opponents of this proposal get to present their side to the broader community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we even need that space? Isn't this a forgone conclusion? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Speaking for myself, and I bet speaking for others, I think that's entirely a good point. I would imagine that there would be a pretty simple RfC page, which should link to the other pages but not have "partisan" content at its top, and then sections for "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral". I would certainly think that editors in the "Oppose" section should be absolutely free to say anything and everything they want (and even link to other pages as they wish). I cannot imagine that there could be anything like community consensus on the proposal unless all sides are free to discuss what they want. Do other editors agree with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, so far you don't have consensus. The reason for this is that no-one has really tried to build a consensus so far; <scratches head> or -well- people tried, but they got shouted down somehow. That's not good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) My point goes more to page structure. Frankly, I'd much rather see an arrangement – as there is at RfA – where the space for comments, questions, and discussion comes before the vote, and not after. It's difficult enough to get people to read discussions before voting even without a vote-first-and-ask-questions-later layout. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, I can only give my personal opinion. On the one hand, I tend to agree with you to the extent that it is very important to be fair to all sides, as I said just above. On the other hand, I note that RfAs actually start with the nomination and so forth, and I would tend to think that the top of the RfC should be, as I said, non-"partisan". There can be a discussion section, yes, and links, certainly, but I'd be uncomfortable with an RfC that opens with a "why you should !vote no" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be completely agreeable to a format similar to a standard RfA: open with the nomination, in which the proposal's proponents are welcome to make their case in favour of this particular CDA process, followed by questions, followed by general comments, followed (finally) by the votes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Since "silence is the weakest form of consensus", I'd better speak up. Where you write, "followed by questions", is that something you can point to an example of, in an RfC rather than RfA form? I ask because while the Questions section is useful and often makes or breaks an RfA, with an RfC it would be akin to asking a document to explain itself, in effect putting the developers of the document (the CDA proposal, of which there are many developers) under a microscope that might bog things down. Wouldn't it be better to have the questions included in the comments section rather than start the entire RfC page with a long list of questions as is done at RfA? Again, an example of this method from a previous RfC would be useful in explaining how it would work. Sswonk (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the confusion arises from the terminology in use here — the approval process isn't an RfC in the sense it is usually used on Wikipedia; it just uses some of the same infrastructure. Unlike the usual run of RfC, where the goal actually is to seek comments and reach a consensus, the purpose of the upcoming poll is to reach a yes-or-no binary decision — does CDA become a policy, or not? Unlike an article content RfC, there isn't the option of seeking middle grounds or alternate wordings or different sources. Unlike a user conduct RfC, this poll only has one final statement, which editors can choose to endorse or reject. In that sense, the closest process we have may well be RfA. I've fixed the header on this thread to reflect that this is a 'poll'.
In simplest form, I envision some sort of space for discussion, followed by some manner of vote. How that 'discussion' section is divided up (if at all) isn't particularly important. If people want to go with a three-category format ('arguments for', 'arguments against', and 'general comments and questions') or just have it all as one big block (no pigeonholes), I'm not bothered either way.
How the developers and proponents of the proposal wish to handle any questions raised during the poll is up to them. If individuals wish to note (or have noted for them) that their comments represent their own opinions and not necessarily those of all the developers, they can go for it. In practice, my experience at the Wikipedia Reference Desk suggests that questions will first be answered by the fastest typist, not necessarily the wisest or best-informed writer — and this is a challenge endemic to the wiki format. It is a near-certainty, however, that if you get anything like the turnout that would be required to make a credible claim of public approval there will be at least a few editors who do have questions about how CDA works. (Way back in 2004, roughly two hundred editors came out to vote on whether or not admins would be allowed to block editors who violated 3RR — and that was a two-sentence policy revision. I can't imagine having two hundred editors look at this proposal – many of them for the very first time – and not have at least a few want to ask for clarifications.) It's something that the proponents should be aware of and give some thought to, if they haven't already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
These are interesting ideas. I think a proper FAQ (which is less of a manifesto, and more of a cover-all 'info sheet') should be able to include any unforeseen RFC's Talk-page questions as they arise. The RFC Intro could read "If you have questions about CDA, ask them in a new section on the talk page" etc, and "they will be promptly answered". All corners should be covered at this stage now, so no real head-scratchers should arise during the RFC. People always "comment:" within the poll itself anyway - it is an RfC after all. And people can always strike and change their vote too (which can be stated in the Intro).
Do you have anything prepared that you would say at the RFC? I think that this here is the stage right now to bring up all our thoughts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've already shared my thoughts about this proposal (and been met with dismissiveness). I'll summarize my concerns during the final vote; everything's in the archives. Frankly, the points I've raised are pretty fundamental, and there's nothing that you're going to be able to paper over with another bikeshed vote. All I'm asking for is a commitment from the proposal's proponents that they won't attempt to separate the comments from the voting page; the community deserves every chance to see all points of view before being asked to vote. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The answer I feared you would give, and a fantastic reality check for us all. If anyone is in any doubts about how some people will do whatever they can to bring this proposal down, just look here. Let's make a sold, watertight and professional proposal - and give the committed non-players as little chance as possible to bring it down. The community does not "deserve" that at all.
You won't find me in those archives TenofAll, although I've actually been working on this proposal now for over 5 weeks. All that time you have refused to contribute reasonably. The community RFC will be full of comments within the poll itself (some after the signature, some on their own) that no one can possibly move - you know that full well. Although I did WP:AGF with you on this at first, I now think this section is a waste of people's time. Paste that up as more "typical dismissiveness" if you like (I'm sure you will). I'm fully expecting a whopper of a 'Comment:' from yourself at the RFC, and I'll be ready with my arms out to catch it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the profound rudeness you've directed at me in the past (and the continued bad faith you're venting now) I don't see why I should play secretary for you. I can't help it if you can't be bothered to read the archives of the proposal. While I reserve the right to elaborate, rearrange, organize and summarize, I will commit now to not raise any problem which has not been mentioned already in the course of the proposal's development. If pointing out unresolved and serious problems counts as doing 'whatever [I] can to bring this proposal down', then so be it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) With the caveat, again, that I am only speaking for myself (and Matt speaks only for himself, not for me!), I definitely agree with the broad principle of what you are saying: that proponents need to step back and allow opponents to openly and freely make every and any argument they wish, and to do so in full view of all editors visiting the poll. I'm a little uncomfortable, though, with making preemptive contracts to not "attempt to separate", which could down the road be wikilawyered all over the place. ("Oh, you indented my comment; we agreed before that you couldn't do that!") Certainly, opposing comments should be freely made on the voting page, and no one should want to interfere with that, and there's certainly no cabal planning to somehow censor the opposition. Frankly, no one will "own" the voting page, and editors will end up having to work through issues that arise over things people say, in the usual way, through consensus as the !voting process goes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Fear not; I've had it up to here with wikilawyers, and I don't want to see them playing with the rules any more than you do. We can take it as given there is sufficient common sense at work that no one will object to the removal of vandalism, the repair of indenting, or similar housekeeping. I don't think that bulky comments or back-and-forth belong in the votes sections, and I would encourage editors to confine lengthy remarks (anything more than twenty or thirty words) and extended threaded conversations to a separate discussion section. What I am concerned about – and the intemperate remarks by Matt Lewis here certainly lend weight to my fears – is that a well-meaning but overzealous defender of this proposal will start moving comments off the main page, perhaps onto a Vote/Complaints subpage or similar. I want the vote to be as transparent as possible, so that at the end of the day neither side will be in a position to say that there were dirty tricks, misleading statements, suppression of comments, or other manipulation.
I don't intend to play 'gotcha' by bringing up any problems which didn't come up before, but I do feel that it is worthwhile to summarize and present the central arguments against this process for the consideration of voters. As Matt Lewis acknowledges, he's been working on this protocol for five weeks but hasn't had time to read all the archives; I don't think the community's going to be able to make an informed decision without at least a cursory introduction to the major issues. I recognize that my natural tendency to loquaciousness could annoy (or be mistakenly perceived as an attempt to drown out others), so I'll even pro-actively enclose any lengthy remarks in archive boxes. The important thing is that there be no attempts by either side to interfere with any editor in good standing's ability to comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish - Did you see me disagreeing with anything regarding commenting at the poll? My anger is that TenOfAll yet again refuses to say why he's so pissed off.
TenOfAll - If you spent one fraction of your quite-hot air on a summary of why you are so upset, you could have actually helped this project. I'm sorry TenofAll - you've been a stone, and have given me no reason for your anger at all. Why should I dig them out of the maze of archives when you are already looming large, and passing some quite damning comments? I went through most of the older discussions a while back - why should I instantly remember your name? To say that you are concerned that I will be moving comments around at the RFC because I am "intemperate" right now is just absurd. You have been highly intemperate yourself!
Let's all of make it clear now - housekeeping aside, nobody will be moving vote comments at the RFC. And my suggestions above about how to deal with questions can be easily implemented too. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What did I say here that suggests I'm 'pissed off'? I don't want to engage in an argument with you, Matt, because you've been aggressively abusive in the past — and seem keen to continue in the same vein now. I strongly disagree with this proposal, but that doesn't mean I'm angry. Until a few comments ago, I thought I was having an open, civil, peaceable discussion with Kim Bruning, Tryptofish, and anyone else who might be interested regarding the anticipated layout of the final poll on whether or not to adopt this proposal as policy. I feel that clarifying everyone's expectations about the final polling process in advance should head off confusion and disruption when the poll actually takes place; I don't see how it is a 'waste of time'. Since it seems likely that further responses to your comments would be counterproductive, I won't reply further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, the fist I personally heard from you was via two very unfair diatribes - first before the poll, suggesting I am incompetent, and then immediately after the poll, which you attacked quite vehemently. I have chosen to react somewhat in kind, partly because you have genuinely offended me. There is no point in you replying to me because you steadfastly make sure you have nothing productive to say. It is absolutely clear though that 'CDA' is seriously pissing you off: more you won't say - in case we incorporate it into the proposal perhaps?? Whatever you think of 'The Railroaders', there has been a certain mentality from a few of the the critics here, and I've reacted as I have done (as the second part) to try and stop you all from building up steam and breaking the process. I personally think I've been successful enough there, and it's always a thankless job to take on. There has already been a Motion to Close, and I and others are intensely aware that certain people (though how many is hard to say) will try and do whatever they can to stop a CDA proposal from happening. Whether it's because they have another favoured admin recall method, or to protect the 'Job', or whatever. The Motion to Close is probably the main reason there has been so much attempted 'railroading' since. Can't you see how silly it's all been?
I've had a look through your early comments on CDA from early December on the pre-revision CDA proposal (if the mountain won't move to Mohammed..):
1) The idea that CDA unfairly claimed support that was just for 'admin recall' as an broad idea - that boat has sailed right now I'm afraid: CDA is here in front of us.
2) The necessary canvassing will lead to biased voting/discussion? You could give it a go I suppose, but if people want the CDA process, they will put up with that. It's the Crat's job to spot consensus past blind bias (ie without good arguments). Some AGF in Wikipedians might be beneficial here - they are not all hotheads, and the proof will be in the pudding: this will effectively be a trial.
3) You complain about "checks and balances" but have you read the proposal lately? It has been significantly updated, including the time scales. You could alway add suggestions for improvements too (hmm)
4) CDA is not a "Mirror RFA" - I've been consistently arguing this more-or-less since I came into this. Why didn't you back me up? Now we have changed to a baseline of 65% (thanks to the poll), this has been easy to tone right down: they proposal doesn't claim this any more, and merely mentions some similarity (with all the caveats that are needed). 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
5) People HAVE discussed all your concerns!! You got plenty of debate going! I don't see any evidence at all of people shouting you down or bahaving anything like the way you did during the finalisation poll! Jusdafax is right there - it's mainly been me who has taken vocal umbridge - but you deserved it because your retuning wave of complaints were up about 10 notches, effectively disruptive, and just simply over the top. In fact, I can see that you started to raise your voice (even suggesting people are deliberately removing criticism!) after that bloody Motion to Close - which is what effectively got everyone riled up. What an astonishingly bad (in every way) thing to try and pull off that 'motion' was. Everything since has been tainted by it. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, if I knew of a way to put a muzzle on Matt, I would have done it a long time ago. Speaking again only for myself, if I see anyone improperly removing critical comments, I'll revert them myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re muzzling Matt: And then where would we be? Back editing articles after an easily-collapsed RFC! I don't think anyone gets away with moving comments in these things - the originator usually puts them back if no one else does. We have to allow people room to get their points all out. The main thing is that we can respond when a point is contentious or inaccurate etc. The whole thing could be a rollercoaster at points I suppose but that's the way it goes. The vote could be close, or it could pass or fail by a clear margin. Things may arise. It's very hard to predict how things will be, so it's best to keep it open, like most polls. No one can complain with that. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds harsh, but I agree: Matt Lewis is probably the biggest enemy that CDA can have at this point in time, due to the fact that he is dividing people up into "us" and "them", and by labeling honest participants as critics.
This de-facto creates enemies, and that is not how wikipedia debate or *any* debate should be framed; at least, if you want it to be constructive.
Sadly, the most contructive thing to do is to ask Matt Lewis to leave at this point in time, and I have done so, above. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
After all the work he's done here? Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have a quiet word with him over your concerns at his talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Certainly; that was my first thought too, but he's been taking things just a bit too far for me. Especially if he has done so much good work, it would suck for him and everyone else if he ultimately manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
My main purpose of these particular comments is to explain how "us vs them" is an often unfair and sometimes actually illogical argument, as the CDA process has to a large degree forged it's own path, and people clearly have different (and valid) reasons for both supporting it and being critical of it. Please don't accuse me of perpetrating it to create rifts - that's torture!
My above comment was a response to TenOfAllTrades, who did assumed from the start I was part of a "them", and described me (I strongly felt) agressively in those terms during the poll. I've been described by a number of critics of CDA as being part of a "you" group, who are 'railroading' the CDA process through. I've have taken time to explain that I am not part of any railroading group (far from it), and that "us v them" is a bad idea. If I'm perpetrating it in any way, then it is only by an unavoidable default and not by design.
I don't actually enjoy calling people up on things, because it just leaves you open to the same (Wikipedia is ever a battle), and I'd rather get on with improving the actual proposal. My only wish is for a watertight and consensus-based proposal (as consensus-based as is humanly possible at this stage), because that is the only kind of proposal that has a chance winning through, and not wasting all of our time.
Nobody should be asked ot leave the project, and I've tried involve everyone I can in discussion, whatever they have previously said. If people are getting more involved now, then I welcome that, so let's perhaps say no more on the matter, and try and work together on a professional CDA proposal that we can all at least be happy voting on. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
My point is, if you are so concerned that you would ask him to leave then you should share your concerns at his talkpage. It sounds to me as though you are waiting for others to back you up. It would also be polite to take him aside and tell him of your concerns rather than say here that you want him gone. Jack forbes (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I can try. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if my commenting is a help or a hurt at this point, but I wish that fewer people would leave this talk and more would help me in pitching in to get a proposal before the community, where those who are critical of it will have every opportunity to express their views. I agree with Kim that no one is helped by dividing us into us-versus-them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you are not suggesting I've been doing that, as I've taken a lot of the flak for railroading. The short railroading period did actually exist, but my point is that we don't just describe it in terms of "us vs them", and then simply slot those who are "for" CDA and those who are "critics" of CDA into the 'us v them' pigeonholes. It is unfair on both parties, as we all have different reasons (and ways) for supporting the current proposal, and for being critical of it. I agree that we should all work on the proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<undent>

@Tryptofish: I think that part of the problem is that some of the people maintaining CDA are not reading WP:CONSENSUS or WP:POLL (I'm not exactly sure whom at this point in time), and apparently they haven't done their history on for instance say WP:ATT, WP:ESPERANZA, WP:AMA .

This is not a ship that has sailed; this particular ship likely won't be launched until *after* most of the current people here have left WP:CCC, WP:SILENCE. And, seeing as there might be some holes, it may well sink.

While posting on this page, I'm not really getting this through to anyone really well. I've tried a positive consensus approach (got archived), I've tried a neutral mathematical approach (got closed), so I'm sort of stuck on where to go from here, short of fighting or just letting things fail.

<scratches head> I guess there *is* an us vs them mentality going on, a small stubborn group of people pushing on in depth-first "full speed ahead and to hell with the icebergs" mode, rather than seeking solutions in a broad, creative, consensus-oriented way.

Some of the things that are actually not wise:

  • Getting a proposal before the community. (Instead make a working system)
  • Obtaining input from mere critics. (poke them with {{tl:sofixit}} and set them to work participating. )
  • Telling people they will get a chance to participate later. (They want to participate now.)
  • Violation of WP:CCC. ("That ship has already sailed" is effectively a declaration of war! Don't say it ;-) )

Some things that are wise:

  • Make a working system, no matter how flawed. (If it's there, people will come)
  • Encourage participation and fine-tuning.
  • Recognise that no solution is perfect.
  • Adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, work together constructively.
  • Adhere to WP:POLL.

And I can keep saying these things until someone posts a big {{tl:failed}} tag on top, in the hope that maybe you'll listen to half of them. <cross fingers> --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to @me, of course, it's really @multiple editors who have been here. I'm just standing here at the moment, taking these comments, because somebody has to. Personally, my hope is that, once an RfC goes forward, hopefully very soon, those critics who have elected not to suggest improvements to the policy being worked on here, will have an ample and fair opportunity to have their opinions heard and evaluated by the larger community, and that, once the RfC is completed, a working system will be put into place. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's really @you. When I catch @multiple_editors, I shall certainly whack them over the head with a wiki:cluestick until they start showing some ;-)
Your response actually raises 3 questions from me:
  1. Why are you taking comments for others, and not on your own merit? (WP:WIARM says you are responsible for your own action or inaction)
  2. Why do you need to wait for the RFC? (I just said that was unwise, right? ;-) )
  3. Why can't you help make a working system right now? :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To answer all three in one: because I can't do it all by myself, nor should I. I say that, realizing that you were hoping for a different answer. In the mean time I chose instead to get back to what I think ought to be the subject of this talk thread: how to conduct the RfC, as opposed to discussing what editors think of one another. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I do not accept you answer for question 1 quite yet; because you *are* doing that practically alone. ;-) Which other people are supposed to be helping with that, if any?
  2. I do not accept your answer for question 2 quite yet either, as I am holding you personally responsible for your participation in this page as per WP:WIARM. Could you briefly write down the reason why you personally choose to work towards the RFC at this point in time.
  3. I partially accept your answer to question 3, but I still have some questions. Who do you expect help from (who are the others)? Is that group sufficiently skilled to perform the task you envision? If not, what is needed? (let's see if we can get them together)
I hope you're willing to expand on your answers and clarify!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@Matt Lewis: Ok, I accept that you don't want an us vs them atmosphere. That's fine then. Let's work towards our goals!

Continuing on your stated goals: I'm not sure you're going to get your wish for a watertight proposal or for consensus. There has been some amount of mismanagement of this process, and it's going to be very hard to

  • Know for sure whether there are large holes, or where they are
  • Discover what negotiations still need to be done to get consensus to make CDA work, based on current information.

I am not interested in holding a binding vote at all. These are typically unrecognised by anyone on Wikipedia. In the unlikely event that a vote does pass, a steward may yet end up not desysopping based on CDA. On the other hand, if you create a CDA process today, with all the requisite pages, you may find stewards are prepared to desysop. [caveats apply]. If this seems unintuitive to you, we need to talk. :-)

I'm rather more interested in opinion-poll outcomes, because those can be used to rapidly build a consensus. However, it appears many of the previous polls appear to be somewhat tainted; and much consensus building has been deferred or flat out denied.

These are all problems that need to be addressed, or there will be no CDA process.

This is coming from someone who has been maintaining wikipedia process for a long time. I am not stalling or trolling. At my option, I can simply walk away and let you find out the hard way.

I have not done so so far.

Instead, I'm very patient and would actually like to help, if you'll accept me.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been glad to see your comments, as I personally want to see as much involvement in this as possible. I think you've made a number of excellent points above, esp about a 'winning' CDA not having to be binding. I suppose you are right too in saying that there need not be a poll at all. I suppose with CDA being "community de-Adminship", it has been expected to a degree that the community should essentially vote it in. There is also some very stong opposition to the idea of CDA (and any new form of Admin Recall too), and an RFC poll might be the only way to overcome that. I'm hoping that enough 'big names' will support CDA to make it unlikey that it will not be taken up if the community proves it has significant support. Of course, those big names will only vote for a viable and 'hole-free' proposal. I think we can still provide one, and that everybody here working on it is the key.
PS. You are right that a lot of the various polls have been tainted in some way (including one I made myself, alas), but in my view that is all part of the process, and I always try and look at what is front of me. Unlimited people work on Wikipedia, so it is only ever a 'bonus' if things run smoothly imo. We can hardly demand fluidity it to be the norm. That's why I keep opposing even fuzzy deadlines - Wikipedia's strength is that things are done when they are done. It's only a weakness if people lose touch, or give up. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why it should be reviewed by the Bureaucrats and User:Jimbo Wales. IMO the community decision on the matter should be enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

suggested RfC polling page[edit]

I have created a page with my suggested, just a suggestion, format of the page where the RfC would eventually be held: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft Poll Page. Please take a look at it, and see whether or not it would be acceptable to all parties. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. That looks like a clean, striaghtforward layout. I mocked up a slight variation; here's the archived version: [6]. Chief changes:
  • I removed the 'Neutral' section. The poll is a straight up-or-down yes-or-no vote. Realistically, anything anyone might raise in that section is better placed in the 'Discussion'. (This format is a bad habit that persists from RfA, which has the same purposeless 'Neutral' section.)
  • The FAQ is moved to the 'Discussion' section, and its authors are identified. (Let me know if I've missed anyone.) I don't think there's consensus that the version of the FAQ which you guys have written offers complete and unbiased answers to all of its questions — and it leaves off some questions that ought to be asked. Rather than bickering about its neutrality and completeness, I think it's fair to move it out of the header and to the start of the 'Discussion'.
  • There's a short reminder to voters that long comments and threaded discussion belong in the 'Discussion' rather than in the votes.
What do you think? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
  • I would prefer to still let editors !vote neutral if they so wish. My guess is that, if we don't start with such a section, someone will just add it and use it. Admittedly, neutral doesn't accomplish much, but why not just let whoever wants to do it, do it.
  • On a related line of thinking, about the third bullet-point you made, I'd similarly rather not tell editors that they cannot comment where they want to. If they want to comment in the Discussion, ok, and if they want to comment in the poll, that's ok too. Again, I'd rather not try to boss people around.
  • Now, as for the FAQ, I pretty much disagree with you about that, but I'd like to hear what other editors think.
--Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
But I will expand on what I think about the FAQ. If we think in terms of how RfA pages are set up, the nomination is at the top, then the nominee answers questions. Only after that does the discussion section come. No one complains that the nomination and the answers to questions have to be moved down to a discussion section. But, having said that, I realize that you are correct that the FAQ should be identified as having been written by editors who have worked on the proposal, as opposed to representing the consensus of all editors who either support or oppose the proposal. I'll make an edit attempting to achieve that, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ is a CDA manifesto, masquarading as a FAQ. I added a Criticisms of CDA section which had a number of points in it, but instead of being addressed/copy-edited (per need, if it needed it), it was completely removed for "courting trouble"! I don't like the language in it, or much about it to be honest, although it's improved a lot. I've had various goes at it, but it still betrays the bias that TenOfAll can easily spot. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

KISS[edit]

Extended content

We're looking for consensus from the wrong direction. Targeting a smaller group will get you consensus much quicker.

  • (Statement of current fact): 1 or 2 people asking a Steward to desysop in a clear emergency will typically lead to an instant (albeit likely temporary) desysop.
  • (new proposal, requiring a little negotiating with arbcom): How about we just add a small rule to the Arbcom procedures, so that if 10 or more people ask the arbcom to handle a desysop case, the arbcom must examine the request for legitimacy and act on it? (Ie. can't turn it down... but if they're busy they might just tell the person to re-run at RFA). I hate handing more jobs to the arbcom, but in this case, it's a job they were already doing.

Are there any corner cases that I'm missing? I figure that negotiating with the arbcom is going to be somewhat easier than trying to deal with folks here. ;-)

I think we should be done entirely within a few 24 hour cycles... less if people happen to share time zones. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that this is no longer an Admin Recall matter, it's a Community De-Admin one. People are committed to this being a reverse RfA of some form, and Uncle G's original text is like some kind of holy scripture. I don't know how that happened, but it did. It's what's I found in front of me, so it's what I'm working on. If it's done properly, I can't see why it shouldn't work. It can surely be trialed at least.
In answer to your suggestion:
1) 10 editors could pester arbcom all the time (or so people will say), while the community takes the load with CDA, through the voting stage.
2) People don't trust arbcom, and they can have silly issues over content etc. Are they good enough for this?
3) WP:RFA's are big polava's - re-running them is resource un-friendly too.
Matt Lewis (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to privilege desysopping cases over and above all others at RfArb, particularly if the sole condition is 'ten people show up'. The ArbCom doesn't accept any other sort of case on that basis. If we lower the bar to an RfArb too far, then we'll also encourage editors to jump over other dispute resolution and go straight for the hangman. Compelling the ArbCom to deal with cases where there have been perfunctory attempts at prior resolution (if any) probably just means that they'll dismiss those cases by motion (in effect, or in fact). If that outcome is all right with you, then I suppose we can drop it on them and see what they say.
I like Jehochman's suggestion (possibly originating with or endorsed by other editors; I don't know if it's originally his) of an RfC that can feed into an ArbCom motion (as appropriate). If a consensus develops at RfC that specific sanctions (including desysopping, but possibly also things like topic bans or interaction restrictions) should be applied to a particular admin (or to any of the major participants in the RfC, for that matter) then the result can be taken to ArbCom for endorsement. It's the sort of thing that could be handled by motions or by a brief case (if the ArbCom is concerned the consensus is unclear or that there are related issues requiring investigation). It allows for a discussion of community expectations for admin conduct in a slightly more relaxed environment and with slightly more relaxed timelines than are available during an RfArb filing. Finally, it lets the ArbCom (a neutral body, which expects Committee members with a conflict of interest or other strong bias to recuse) sanity-check the evidence and conclusions. Such a process doesn't even require any policy changes, which leaves me wondering why no one has ever tried it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, at that point, don't we sort of end up with the traditional dispute resolution path? (If we start at RFC, why not talk with medcom or so too? ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
RfC is just too ubiquitous and undersold. Admin recall needs it's own platform, and one of the strongest aspects of CDA is that it has just that. Also, Arbcom are not fully trusted - despite the rucusing, they appear to many people to be basically higher-powered admin. Can admin judge admin? Having the Bureaucrats decide will bring them closer to the public, and will force them to be accountable too. Accountability will spread throughout Wikipedia with CDA.
The baseline and threhold percentages (which should be 65% and 85% if we call a compromise consensus on the clearly split percentages in VOTE 2) will give editors at least some feeling of being able stand up to the perceived untouchability of admin. Seriously - I don't think enough admin actual realise the amount of bad faith there is against them simply because they are just so unaccountable.
CDA being posed as a 'mirror RFA' idea is a total con I agree - but at least the de-election powers it has (with all the massive safeguards) adds some kind of 'balance' to the medieval system we have now. Admin who get through RFA are massively rewarded for doing so. The "mop and a bucket" job label is of course a joke - it is supposed to be a "mop and bucket", but admin are clearly knighted with a strong set of powers that can lead to a whole range of abuses. It is effectively an honour for life. Taking away some of that lustre will go some way to diminishing the abusable aspects of those powers.
I for one would unimpressed with an Arbcom-heavy process, and see the above suggestion as constituting little change. I've seen Arbcom ignoring too much. They are used to saying "this is not an Arbcom matter", and refusing content. The don't look at anything unless they are prompted to. I really don't think they are built for judging what the community feels - the community is. And the 'community' is every Wikipedian made equal. Arbcom should be able to vote.
The community should really have a dedicated part of Wikipedia where serious community-related matters like CDA can be held. That way they can be informed of things. It is currently easy to inform all admin, and almost impossible to inform the community, unless you are allowed to feature in the 'watchlist' (which can be arguably easily ignored). So CDA has all the extra net benefits, and makes some good use of the Bureaucrats, rather than push Arbcom beyond their limits. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeframe[edit]

Please note: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship#Goal for finishing talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic folks, we don't need to fix date quite yet. It is possible that a CDA proposal is almost there though. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on what you'd like to see happen right now[edit]

This is a perhaps a good time to say things you still want to say. I'd love people just to make a simple comment on they would like to see happen right now. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone at this point

1. Don't panic.
2. Go to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship#Getting page ready, where, with a little scrolling down, you'll come to a bulleted list of the things I think are still unclear, along with some responses inserted by MacDui (sorry that they make it harder to read). I'd love to see us figure out what we really think about all of those bulleted points.
3. Don't panic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm as calm as can be. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You may be the only one. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know whatever happened with this, without having to read it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean this draft page (ie CDA in general?): In what context, though? I'll make a section below on the past events (please correct any glaring mistakes). Matt Lewis (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I, too, wish that I didn't have to read all of it! My impression at this stage is that no one is bringing up new problems, and what remains between now and being comfortable with going forward is for us all to examine, in a constructive spirit, and without finger-pointing or letting personal grudges get in the way, the remaining issues where there are differences of opinion, and figure out how to resolve those differences in a rational way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
People are continuously bringing up new problems and existing old problems, but it seems they're being shouted down very quickly (from my limited experience) . --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I do understand what you are saying. I was referring to edits to be made to the proposal, when I said that no one is bringing up new problems, meaning that it was now a matter of resolving the problems already brought up. I didn't mean that no one was objecting to the concept of the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a very unfair response. Nobody will be able to find examples of constructive criticism being "shouted down" by me, and I've not seen yourself do it either. You might think I don't "drop it" enough - but that is a different matter. Personally, I've only been vocal with hugely unproductive criticism, which has far-too often provided nothing positive at all to grab hold of. I've always addressed everything constructive or positive (and esp if related to actual material issues with the proposal!!), and have done as much as anyone to that degree. You should know this, and be backing me up. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Matt Lewis: How the CDA proposal got to this stage[edit]

Comment: The idea of 'Admin recall' was under discussion, and a poll was made on its validity: 77% of voters were in favour of it. Around 14 forms of AR were then proposed, and the Community de-Adminship proposal turned out to have the most support in the polls (with 67% and a majority of 13, it was the only one that surpassed 50% support). While the support for the CDA proposal was not strong enough to make every one happy, after some debate a significant number of people felt it was still strong enough to advance. People then proposed various revisions to the original proposal, and the current version of CDA (that a Bureaucrat decides on whether to de-sysop and admin after spotting a clear consensus to do so) was based on 'revision 5.4', which was the only major revision proposed that had more 'support' than 'oppose' votes. However, a significant number of people who voted in agreement to the principle of 5.4, said that a 70% 'baseline' for the consensus margin would be too high for them.

A number of people were unhappy with the advancement of CDA, and after a lull in votes, a Motion to Close was put forward which, after it was broadly and fairly canvassed by both 'sides', brought in some new faces to the process. The motion to disband CDA eventually lost by 2 votes to 1. The attempt to disband something in mid proposal meant that a number of people on both 'sides' were decidedly unhappy at this point.

After the 4th Jan deadline for the revision-poll phase, some concerned people put their name down for more time to debate. This was effectively put on hold, and a small but tight group of people (who were long-time participants on the Admin recall debates) started to move a newly-revised 5.4-based proposal towards RFC (the community vote). The concern was raised that the Christmas/New Year/early Jan period was not the best time for making big decisions, and that the general 'attendance' was currently low. A significant criticism was; should we move forward on a revision just because it was the only one of a particular group to have (limited) support? As attendance was so low, the idea was made to either make a two-phase poll at the final RFC (asking questions on what type of CDA was wanted, before voting FOR or AGAINST the winning decision), or to make a further poll here, to encourage more input before the RFC. The idea of more polling was criticised from people who were both for and against moving forward with CDA, who felt (for different reasons) that there had been enough polls already.

Though strong-willed, long-standing and committed, the group wanting to “push on to the RFC” was too small to secure a sense of consensus. In the absense of any other productive debate, a 'Finalisation poll' was made, which was a little rushed and compromised in order to appease those who were still critical of it (who were still mindful of the Motion to Close, did not want to risk more 'unhelpful stonewalling', and to some degree at least, wanted to rush on to RFC rather than waste any more time). The initial poll was adapted to accommodate people's comments on it, changing from an initial 2 vote poll, to a 4 vote poll.

The “Finalisation poll” was initially intended to decide what the ambiguous 'consensus margin' percentages should be (in VOTES 1 and 2). The poll also asked the question of whether people were happy with a two-stage community RFC (VOTE 4), and those who voted on this clearly wished to propose a single 'finished product' to the RFC, and did not wand to “over-complicate” matters. There was also an “unofficial” oppose (VOTE 4), where those critical of this CDA proposal could express their concerns. This was non-binding, as the Motion to Close had already failed to gain majority support. A number of people who didn't vote in votes 1-3 commented in vote 4.

Looking at the results of VOTE 1 and 2, it was clear that we needed to adjust the 70% baseline for the consensus margin to 65%, to fairly represent the range of opinion (many people wanted as low as 50%, while some wanted higher at 75%). Whether to adjust the top threshold of the consensus margin from 80% to 85% is still being debated (as 80% was out-polled 2:1 by the 90% and 100% votes).

Why should any of this be the end of the process?

A number of other issues with the CDA details have recently been brought to light, and these are being debated on the CDA proposal talk page.

....

To add to the above, as far as I'm concerned we are still at the writing stage of the CDA proposal, and anything can be adapted to it (or even changed surrounding it) providing there is a real consensus to do so. It's been a bumpy ride at times, but I personally think that a CDA proposal of some sort could not have been avoided, given the debate for and against it that I have read. It is very easy for critics to say "we've not been listened to", but I can't find any specific evidence of this - it is more a case of CDA being advanced - partly through support for it, and part the absense of enough opposition and counter-arguments. This can lead to 'railroading' of course, and there a has certainly been a real danger of that. Railroading needs to be countered properly though. Speaking realistically, it does look like this CDA proposal will be put to the community now, and it may or may not win support. Either way, new things can still be looked at. CDA would be a trial of a singular process, and it shouldn't prevent people looking at different options or changes elsewhere. Things can also change at this stage now. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked for others to correct anything we see as mistakes. Overall, I think your summary is fair, but here are a few things where there are differing points of view. The fourth paragraph is subjective in the ways that it characterizes editors who did not always agree with Matt, and in the way that it excuses some of the rush in devising the poll. The summary generally does not give equal time to the editors who have said that they are growing impatient with the length of the process. Where, near the end, it says that 80% was out-polled, it fails to reflect that 90% was out-polled by the same amount, and, based on the actual count as the question was worded, 85% was out-polled by something like 75:1—the point being, not that there really is such strong evidence against 85%, but, rather, that there is not such strong evidence for it, either. It still needs to be discussed. Personally, I don't want to go forward with an RfC until we can really resolve that point. But I'm optimistic that we will soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I did mean to indicate that the 'close group' dedicated to pushing CDA on, had been committed to the project throughout - but while I was struggling on how to phrase it, to be honest I eventually thought "so what?". Lots of people do a huge amount of fruitless (and thankless) work on Wikipedia, and many of the people watching you (who disagree with this particular CDA proposal) will also have also put a lot of work in too, many with the frustration of seeing their work shelved. You not being Johnny-come-latelies is a worthwhile point though, so I'll drop in something on it. It already suggests that a lot of frustration was involved.
On the 85% argument, I tried not to prejudice it, but 80% was certainly out-polled 2:1 whatever reasons there were for it. The fact that 90% and 100% were out-polled too, surely only adds weight to creating a new compromise percentage, instead of picking one of 80, 90, or 100. The main point is; we cannot call 80% a consensus in terms of the finalisation poll results, whether it us the percentage more likely to satisfy the public or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I said the fourth paragraph, not the third. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added something ("long-standing") there too! Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification?[edit]

Pretend I don't know anything that's going on here (very close to the truth) and clarify for me, and anyone else looking in, the position as of now of this draft, please. I'm not looking for reams of text here but rather a condensed (if possible) summary of the situation as it stands. I think this would be a help to anyone coming in cold to this. I know people could read all that has gone on before, but it is rather long and sometimes a little confusing. Jack forbes (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that's a good question, and I sympathize with why you ask it. For where we are at, time-wise: here. For what still has to get done before we go to the community: here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced this ('Clarification') section to be a subsection of the one above it, which was designed for exactly this type of question. I tried to write a summary of CDA events directly above - although it doesn't directly answer your question. As things stand right now, you can quickly see what needs to be resolved by looking at the CDA proposal again here (some parts are now labelled "needs discussion" - these are outstanding issues). Apart from the 80%/85%/90% issue, most of the discussion on change is on the CDA talk page, sections of which Tryptofish links to above (one being, as you can see, a summary of remaining questions).

That page is quite involved and 'busy' looking, so I think people could use this section here to raise new things (concerns, things that are missed etc).Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Process stalled[edit]

The process of bringing a proposal to the community is presently stalled. I, for one, am largely stepping back from the debate, but I do want to make sure that editors who are only following the issue casually are aware of what is happening. Please see Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship#Remaining questions part 2 and Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC#Start/Re-start for the most recent discussions. Editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You stopped answering my questions, so my status is "blocked, waiting for input". ;-) I'm pretty good at getting things unstalled. But only if people actually want to cooperate. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Kim, the stalling to which I referred is not about you, and there is nothing stopping you or any other editor from stepping up and making it happen, not simply waiting for me or for others to do it for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
And that's the way it should be. Unfortunately you still haven't responded to my February 1 questions. Somewhere along the way it seems like certain folks are forgetting that the internet is one big conversation, and we need to communicate in 2 directions. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship, and some discussion is pending some actions (ie, I'm currently sending out querying messages to all who voted in VOTE 2, and I'll be advertising the new proposed Canvassing section here too.) Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote for the 80 % threashold, but it's not clear where to vote. Please put my vote there. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It's entirely Matt Lewis' responsibility to take care of telling editors where to vote and to figure out what the responses are, but my reading of the message on my talk page is that each editor is asked to reply on your own talk page, and I suppose that Matt will go around to all the talk pages to collect the results. I also will point out here that Matt wrote the question entirely by himself, and so the framing of the question is 100% his responsibility. As I have pointed out previously, the wording was, and still is, misleading. In particular, it is entirely false to imply that any percentage such as 80% or 90% is one above which the closing Bureaucrat is constrained to "automatically desysop", as opposed to using discretion to determine consensus from all of the information available, discounting improper !votes, reading the discussion, and so forth. If, for example, the proposal says "80%", and the result after removing improper !votes is 81%, the closing Bureaucrat is still required to evaluate consensus, and not just make some sort of machine-like "automatic" decision (although in my opinion the consensus would be pretty obvious in that case). There is no such thing as an "automatic desysop" in the proposal being considered, and it does the proposal a disservice to imply that such a thing exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I asked you to help with this but you did not reply to me - and every time you complain only after the event. Most of what I have done for CDA has been to combat sheer anti-consensus, and the reason the finalisation poll was rushed was because another editor attempted to scupper it and push through CDA before I could get to do it.
That this process is "stalled" is entirely your own opinion too. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I was never asked to review the wording of the question that has appeared on my and others' talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
After you have been ignoring me on the matter? Frankly, I wasn't in the mood to be talked down to again, so I put it to someone else instead. It's been a while since you've missed any opportunity to have a 'pop' at me (always needlessly in my view), and I don't seem to have the personality to ignore it alas (in this place anyway). I know the policy and guidelines I signed up to - the one think I am is a Wikipedian. The message originally said more on the "rule of thumb" element - but everyone contacted simply knows this anyway. I hope you will not use it to dispute the results. In fact - if you are going to dispute my findings will you tell me now? I'm planning to spend a number more hours on this (however long it takes) and you could do another human being a real favour if you told me your plans here before I expend any more of my time. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I will dispute your findings if they appear to me to be incorrect. I do not yet know what your findings are going to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't find that very promising, so I'll tell you right now that if I'm not happy with your reasons for disputing people's clarifications (and there is no way that I could be I'm afraid) I will take you to rfc/u and put eveything I have behind it. I'm simply standing on the verge of having had enough. Nobody should have the right to give another editor such a run around based entirely on their biased POV. If you were happy with a 90% threshold (rather than insisting that 80% is the max), I do not believe that this supposed "polling ambiguity" which you are claiming has 'tainted' the results would have entered your head even for a second. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice way to deal with what you characterize as a difference in POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm content with the current major contributors. There's just enough cooks in the kitchen, too many would be chaotic. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
As a current major contributor (I suppose), I want to say that I think you are dead wrong. Being "content" means that nothing will happen. The idea that editors who want to see a successful proposal can just sit back and things will come together on their own is wishful thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Contributing and consensus is what this is all about. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish is in the right of it; Matt has hijacked the process here for reasons which are not yet clear to me. Now Matt attempts to isolate and marginalize Tryptofish, as seen above. I propose this blockage be dealt with if there is to be any hope of Cda being brought forward to !voters. This has gone on far too long and is a classic example of using Wikipedia policy to, as I see it, further a self-promoting agenda. The endless debate is a pack of nonsense. Jusdafax 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are the principle reason I am doing all this hard work. Can I bill you for the hours of my time I am spending? I wish I could charge you I really do (and I'm not your money loving type). You cared nothing for consensus, and only for pushing your favoured (and utterly incomplete) CDA through. You wished to railroad everyone. If you had accepted the consensus I found to poll again (as tryptofish and macDui did, in fairness to them), and not tried to counter-poll for a close-by closing date, I would not have rushed, and the last couple of weeks of my life would have been completely different. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that. The solution is, as I have been saying, for editors who want to see a successful proposal to look at the links provided in this section, and think about how to resolve the unresolved questions, and contribute to solving them. Complaining that someone else needs to get things moving, and pretending that someone else is going to do it for you, won't accomplish anything. I've said more than enough on this, and am trying to step back so that others will speak. It's important for other editors to provide their own input. We certainly do not have too many cooks in the kitchen. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we need more input. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It is my current understanding like Tryptofish that the response to the recently requested and sent out poll clarification by Matt Lewis should be left on the user's talk page. Seemed a little strange to me to decentralize the discussion so, but I figured if that is what Matt wants he's willing to do the work to collect the results. Matt are you going to do that? Moreover what Matt has asked opens the door to murkiness. By decentalizing discussion it undermines the results of such discussion. Because of that I personally am not too concerned with the results of Matt's follow up and consider it optional and done more to satisfy Matt's personal concerns. Unless the results of the clarification he's requested return a strong argument to amend certain provisions and Matt can clearly and effectively show it here, the process should continue as can be understood on these pages. Lambanog (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)]
What is the murkiness I have "opened the door to"? Can you understand how mortifying it is to read that, after I have been forced to send these querying messages, to clear the 'supposed' murkiness of VOTE 2? The door is already kept ajar, and no one is currently allowed to pass through it because the doorman won't let them.
I think this is what happens when people read Tryptofish's comments, which are ever-condescending to me in some way. Yes of course people should reply on the Talk pages; the querying message says "reply below". I will of course gather the results. I am not 'decentralising discussion': discussion has been deliberately stalled and the poll results we have are contested. How else can we rectify that other than to ask people to clarify? I'm not allowed to archive any of this page (which is nearly all poll analysis) so I can't ask people here - experience has shown that they simply won't come when the page is so big (and most are passive anyway, so they wouldn't all return).
Tryptofish has already intimated that any 'ambiguity' within the clarifying results (like people not responding I expect), will see him still digging his heels and not allowing VOTE 2 to be taken seriously. If he does I will use an rfc/u on him, as he is simply just cracking the whip and demanding too much. It is total stonewalling. I'm not a slave, and it is just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have not seen these querying messages to 'decentralise' discussion - I am doing what I have to to break a deadlock brought on by a single editor, who has been consistently blaming me for his own actions. THERE IS NO REALISTIC AMBIGUITY IN VOTE 2, AND THESE CLARIFICATIONS WILL CLEAR THAT UP. We will then be forced to adjust upwards (probably to 85%) as 80% would untennable when only about 38% voted for it, and it didn't rise above on second-choice votes either. We HAVE to follow consensus, even when it is not as 'exact' as we would like, and even when we personally don't want to see any change.
There have been compelling arguments for 90% and "none" from major WIkipedian's. We cannot just ignore them. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop threatening me (and preemptively, over things I haven't even done yet, no less). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reboot[edit]

The endless reams of text here is all interesting, and I'm not trying to put anyone down, but in the end... who cares? Reboot, and simplify! We need a place to hold discussion about a potentially problematic admin, we need a way to shut down legitimately unneeded nominations, and we need some mechanism to close discussion. That's it! All of this fluff about 80%, 90%, none, or whatever is pointless drivel. The process will not survive for long as it is designed, regardless, so shut up already, put a skeletal process draft together, and open and RFC to get it approved already.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA was never at the point where a skeletal process (which is much harder to cynically oppose I agree) could be proposed, because Unle G's proposal was too advanced. So we would have always needed to 'reboot' - but the strength of current (for good or bad) was always against that. And some people are prepared to oppose CDA of theoretical grounds too - ie "this will never work because.." - so a skeletal proposal could still fail miserably.
Personally, I think the general voters will want to see something that looks like policy, something they can picture using. At the end of the day, we don't just need people to vote for it - but enough people to counter-balance the guaranteed 'opposes' that will no-doubt come in daunting bunches.
When we can finally archive the poll analysis discussion (most of this page) things wan't look so bad. Non-fluid consensus was and will never be easy on Wikipedia I fear. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ohm's, increasingly I feel as you do. Not that we need to make a skeletal proposal, but that this has become pointless drivel. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Who is dragging his feet (and preventing archiving) while pretending that the proposal has 'stalled'?
It is outrageous to stonewall and prolong the poll analysis and call all the analysis (which is most of this page) "pointless drivel". You are simply dragging your heels on 80% being adjusted according to the finalisation poll, and reverting some much-needed archiving of parts of the analysis. It will all be archived and over if it wasn't for your insistance that the threshold CANNOT be over 80%, even when people like FT2 voted 90% and made comments explaining why he feels it should not be lower.
As soon as I have the clarification data on the "none" vote (which you are forcing me to do, without any realistic reason other than you don't want an 85% adjustment), I will archive all the masses of analysis and make this a people-friendly Talk page, as it would be right now if it wasn't for you.
If this CDA proposal has stalled (as you insist - but that is partly just your impatience again), then you would obviously be the one who has stalled it, not me as you have been suggesting. I find your stalling-tactics pointless, not the CDA proposal, which is slowly scratching it's way to a finished consensus-accepting state: the only state that any developed proposal will have a chance at the RfC. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
??? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I dropped my preference from 90% to 85%. Surley, a fella can meet half-way, 80% to 85%? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
From your indent, I assume you are directing that at me? I thought you were satisfied with how everything was going. I'm asking for more editors to get involved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It was a request, not a demand. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
But it wouldn't change anything anyway. My opinion is only one opinion, and I didn't revert McDui when he tried to start the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No prob, I didn't think ya did (revert MD's RfC). GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Second the motion to stop this - The discussion should be how to move past Matt's continued demands that we need to keep parsing this. In his defense, it seems he's merely highly over-zealous (as opposed to disingenuous) and has had an anti problem-admin agenda for a number years. But he is far and away the worst problem Cda faces, in my view. This reminds me of over-producing a track of music in the recording studio... it reaches a point where you need to stop fiddling with it, because it's getting worse, not better. P.S. I was unaware 'till this moment that Ben had tried to start the RfC, and Matt has reverted it. This is simply outrageous. Jusdafax 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

MacDui 'sprung' the RfC in the middle of a number of outstanding debates, and it was thouroughly irresponsible. You were directed to it on your talk page a few times I noticed, so I don't know how you didn't know. Look at the CDA you wanted to run (against consensus) in early Jan - it was a bucket full of holes. Compare it to now - an almost complete and professional looking proposal. I have defended consensus every step of the way against people who have basically said "we don't need it". My wisdom is strong and clear - only with a decent consensus behind it can it possibly stand a chance. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I would point, again, to what I said at the very top of the "Process stalled" thread immediately above. That says what I think needs to happen, and it's still what I think. I also do not think there is anything particularly controversial about what I said there. But, seeing that editors appear not to be aware of why I started that thread, let me elaborate. Yes, MacDui tried to start the RfC at the time that had been clearly advertised here and in other talk over a long period. As soon as he did, Matt not only reverted it, but edit warred over it and started an (unsuccessful) RfC/u over MacDui (which I note only because of the similar threat against me above). When another administrator closed the RfC/u because it had failed to be seconded as required, Matt threatened the other administrator as well. But all that is a side-issue. I have no problem with letting the process go on a bit more and finding out what comes back. But, once that happens, the proposal needs to be completed and brought to the community. And the best way to get from here to there is for more editors to be paying attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, the rfc/u on MadDui was not unsuccesful - it fully did it's job to protect this CDA proposal. I did not push it after doing it, and nobody responded to it because it clearly did the job it set out to do. Nobody ran to MacDui's defence. (apart from yourself calling me disruptive as usual). It was closed by MacDui's actual admin friend without asking me first - which is why I rightly complained - he asked MacDui (the subject), but not me, the actual opener. I will certainly take you to task if you carry on stonewalling past the poll query answers, and continue running me down yourself - no question about it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I still think more cooks is harmful, but I won't object to them. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe an antacid? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've no ulcers. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Me neither (yet!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, I'm personally avoiding this talk page generally, and simply waiting on the RFC. I'm not going to address the interpersonal crap (other then to comment that I'm not surprised, as that sort of thing is simply another symptom of this being over-processed), but I do want to say that I agree with the idea's expressed in Jusdafax's second, above. I was unaware of the conflict as well, by the way.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Although I've failed to practice what I preach today, I, too, have been trying to step back and wait a bit (in my case, to try to get out of the line of fire, as well as to be better able to assess what others think). My concern is that, with almost everyone stepping back as I am attempting to do, only a few editors with unrepresentative views are actively involved, and consequently, the RfC may never come. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are at the centre of this, and always have been. The tight-knit group of you, MacDui and Jusdafax has made finding any consensus (outside of your own) incredibly hard. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Trypto. I stepped back to let the dust settle, but it never did. I regret my decision. Jusdafax 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussions and I'm just not going to be bothered trying to read and absorb all of the mountains of verbiage. Sorry. But I look at Matt Lewis's crticisms of people such as Tryptofish and Jusdafax who I don't know from Adam but from a quick search are very reasonable editors who talk a lot of sense. However his jibes at Ben MacDui, who I do know, because I make a point of following his work as a superb editor in main space and in talk for his impish sense of humour, are completely out of order. You know, to crticise MacDui as being a member of a tight-knit group working against the project is quite plainly laughable and the same applies to the other two editors as well. This whole process, from where I'm looking, is being held back by Matt Lewis. Personally, I'm unconvinced for the need for a CDA but to impune the integrity of editors who are actually striving for the same outcome is quite simply unacceptable. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to say something like that, you would do well to "be bothered" to read the background. I would seem wise. I have stopped CDA being 'railroaded' when there was a consensus NOT to do it. I have defended myself from abuse and sly comments every single step of the way. The comments by me you clearly don't like are ALWAYS 100% reaction, never anything else. I have not held anything back but a TIGHT KNIT group who have always stood strongly and unapologetically against consensus. I've stuck my neck out and have taken slaps at every stage. I'm hoping it will be worth it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Options for the "Closing" paragraph[edit]

Well, actually, I suppose there are more options than these, but I'm putting these here for the benefit of editors who, understandably, have lost track of the discussion. I'm labeling them A, B, and C, based on the chronological order in which they were suggested, and I'm highlighting the areas of active questioning in green. In particular, this shows the actual text being contemplated, in ways that might not always be clear in the wording of the poll that has been distributed to talk pages.

Version A is, perhaps, the one with the fewest words. It was written largely by Ben MacDui, based on language written earlier by SilkTork, which, in turn, was based on the existing language for RfA:

A:
Sometime after the 7 days for the discussion have elapsed, a Bureaucrat will review the request and close it. Bureaucrats are volunteers, and closure is not required to occur exactly on the deadline.
Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page. There are two primary outcomes: either the sysop right is to be removed, or it is not. If the consensus is for removal, then the Bureaucrat will present the request to a Steward, showing project consensus for its removal. In either case, the Bureaucrat will close the discussion, recording the outcome, and archive it.
The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above 80% support for removal are passed, while most of those below 65% fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats are, explicitly, free to take into account rationales and discussion, and to discount any and all forms of sockpuppetry and canvassing to recruit people who are not part of the Wikipedia editor community (including single-purpose accounts created for the purpose).

Note please how far the actual language is from any sort of "automatic desysop" at 80% or higher. Version B is a slight modification by me, simply inserting twice the word "approximately":

B:
Sometime after the 7 days for the discussion have elapsed, a Bureaucrat will review the request and close it. Bureaucrats are volunteers, and closure is not required to occur exactly on the deadline.
Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page. There are two primary outcomes: either the sysop right is to be removed, or it is not. If the consensus is for removal, then the Bureaucrat will present the request to a Steward, showing project consensus for its removal. In either case, the Bureaucrat will close the discussion, recording the outcome, and archive it.
The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above approximately 80% support for removal are passed, while most of those below approximately 65% fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats are, explicitly, free to take into account rationales and discussion, and to discount any and all forms of sockpuppetry and canvassing to recruit people who are not part of the Wikipedia editor community (including single-purpose accounts created for the purpose).

Version C was proposed by Sswonk, using ratios in place of percentages, and has not received much attention, but I think it is worth a serious look:

C:
Sometime after the 7 days for the discussion have elapsed, a Bureaucrat will review the request and close it. Bureaucrats are volunteers, and closure is not required to occur exactly on the deadline.
Bureaucrats determine the consensus of the community, using both the opinion poll and the discussion on the talk page. There are two primary outcomes: either the sysop right is to be removed, or it is not. If the consensus is for removal, then the Bureaucrat will present the request to a Steward, showing project consensus for its removal. In either case, the Bureaucrat will close the discussion, recording the outcome, and archive it.
The point of the process is determining the consensus of the Community at large. For an Administrator to have the sysop right removed, a Bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supporting the removal has taken place. Consensus can be difficult to ascertain, and it is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above approximately 5:1 support for removal are passed, while most of those below approximately 2:1 fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats are, explicitly, free to take into account rationales and discussion, and to discount any and all forms of sockpuppetry and canvassing to recruit people who are not part of the Wikipedia editor community (including single-purpose accounts created for the purpose).

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Version D was suggested by Matt, as it was the result reading from the Finalisation poll that is broadly the 'mean average', when "none" is seen as 100% (it is a little lower than the mean). Second votes were also taken into account.

D:
Use 85% for the threshold, as that is closest to consensus, per the 71 votes in VOTE 2 of the Finalisation poll, for 80%, 90% and "none";
Second choices votes are in brackets:
80%:: 26 (1)
85%:: 01 (0) - voter-chosen figure
90%:: 24 (1)
None: 20 (10)
Note that the "none" votes generally clearly mean "100%", but the extent of this will be clarified by the querying messages currently being sent to all the voters in VOTE2. The idea behind using 85% is that a 'compromise consensus' is needed when the vote was almost evenly divided. It will fit with the 65% baseline percentage in whatever is the most suitable text.

--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have three points on the 'suggestions' above;

1) 85% (D) had the most support in the post poll analysis, though a number of the people involved seem to accept a variety of options (like using ratios).

2) "(this figure needs to be discussed)" is written into the CDA proposal next to the default 80%.

3) The text needs to be sorted out after the percentage, as the percentage can't be prejudiced by any 'alternative' text around it! Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph in the CDA proposal is actually the only one that hasn't been properly 'copy-refined' yet, partly because the percentages have not been finalised. You should not call each example above seperate 'proposals', and the differing text should not prjudice the figures.

@Tryptofish: You should really let Swonk (and MacDui) speak for themselves. Before suggesting ratio's, Swonk originally accepted that 85% is fair - which as a ratio would not be 5:1 but 7:1 (if I remember the calculation). Only you have disallowed 85%. All the other post-poll participants I can remember accepted it was a usuable figure, including MacDui, myself, Sswonk, GoodDay, Dank (someone who agreed with him) and FT2. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
85% was not offered as a choice in the poll. I am letting other editors speak for themselves, nor do I have the power to disallow anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Great, I'll finish the querying messages now, and hopefully they will show little misunderstanding (or clarify any that were misunderstood) and we can see what people think. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The question should be put in the affirmative.[edit]

Looking at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example, I see that the question has been put backwards. Questions/motions put to debate should be done in the affirmative. All serious debating bodies do it this way, and for a variety of good reasons.

A de-adminship poll is a !vote-debate of no confidence in the administrator. It is fine to call the poll "de-adminship" or "no confidence", but the formal question should be

"Example (talk · contribs) has the support of the community as an administrator"

or similar. Responses such as "yes" or "support" should be affirmative responses in support of the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The action that would be contemplated in CDA proceedings is a specific one by a steward, on request of a bureaucrat: the removal of sysop privileges. CDA is effectively a vote (with some bells and whistles) on whether or not to enact that particular change. I don't think it would be constructive (or as transparent) to reframe the question in other terms. The status quo is the admin continuing to be an admin; a motion put to debate requires an affirmative answer to change that — yes, we endorse the proposed action; versus no, we do not support this motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TenOfAllTrades. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see de-adminship as more of a 'routine' matter of supporting the actual removal process (rather than the admin - which is more personal). Theoretically, not all CDA would be 'personal' - though many would be of course. "Supporting" the admin (rather than the process) could be inappropriate for some CDA's. I actually don't expect CDA to be used much at all, and 'use' is not its principal benefit imo. It just needs to be there. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Reply to OP: Not really. See motion of no confidence. Pcap ping 03:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is "OP"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Original Poster. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to move on[edit]

You folks need to move on with this. The longer a proposal takes, the more people lose interest and so fewer people are involved. Just remember that this is a proposal, so the fine details do not have to be exact, and also that in operation things will anyway change. The details you are attempting to pin down right now may well change if it is taken up. You are attempting to give community consensus figures that don't yet exist. There has been no community dysopping, so therefore there are no consensus figures that can be used as examples. What you do have is the nearest thing which is RfA, and you can base the consensus figures on those as a starting point. I am taking this off CENT as the community has looked and given their input, and it is now just a handful of folks talking amongst themselves. SilkTork *YES! 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of us among the "handful" have been saying the same thing for some time now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Then why drag you heels on the threshold percentage if it's no big deal? Matt Lewis (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is only one editor dragging their heels at this point in time, and it isn't me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You will accept that 80% simply has no consensus then, and allow an adjustment to 85%? There is no way you can say I am dragging my heels just because I don't agree with a non-consensus approach! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
SilkTork - there is a number of things I am concerned with here:
  1. More people are contributing right now than at any time since the poll. Why take if off CENT now?
  2. The "reverse RfA" idea of CDA has been objected to by a number of people. Given all the safegaurds, I personally think it's a misleading label, and the baseline is at 65% now anyway.
  3. We are awaiting results on clarifying VOTE 2 and thte threshold percentage. If that has to be done, it has to be done. You personally wanted an 80% threshold, but you have to remember that the majority of voters at the finalisation poll did not. Can we afford to ignore such a clear fact?
  4. After the percentages are sorted, we have to look at Canvassing issue, as it could make or break CDA (both at the poll, and it implementation). If CDA can't get the canvassing element right, then it surely cannot be the right Admin Recall option to go with. All the feared 'mayhem' could happen before 10 signatures are fully collected, and the certification process gets kick in. Not even in the '7 days' alloted collection time - disruption could easily start before the first signature is signed according to the current proposal.
  5. Wikipedia should not have a whip. CDA has not been unduly slow given what it is, and I did not sign up to a Wikipedia that has deadlines for things like this. The idea of people "losing interest" is just not a Wikipedian one in my eyes, and I don't think its fair or logical for CDA either: most people don't know about it yet. Many (if not most) of the ones who do know about it would have surely have voted against it in early Jan, per the Motion to Close and the various criticisms and unconsidered factors. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make three points, one about the current state of the Guide, the other two about the state of the process.

Personally, I refer there to be discussion first and changes afterwards. I see little in the way of consensus for many of the changes since 16:30 on 6th February, although they are now significant. Were I interested in continuing to support this exercise I'd either revert to that point, or suggest that this be done.

Secondly, it is becoming pretty clear that without a significant influx of new blood that achieving any kind of consensus is becoming increasingly difficult. This whole process has been going on since mid October of last year: it is pretty clear that there are different views about how quickly things need to proceed and about how to word aspects of the Guide. It seems to me that at present things are just going round in circles rather than there being headway. There are also different views about how the community will see this. Some may believe that a long and slow process is a sign of strength. Other are already looking at it askance. I have no way of measuring this objectively, but I think you know my views.

The third relates to where we are in terms of both a more general acceptance of current efforts and my own position. Tryptofish, as you have hinted at, recent events have led to my enthusiasm for the concept waning. Secondly, even if this were not true, I have to say Matt that some of your recent interactions (not at CDA itself, although related to this process) have been extremely unhelpful. In my view, whilst I have no doubt that your intentions are essentially good, opponents of the Admin Recall concept are going to find it easy to provide diffs to present at an RfC and ask others to draw their own conclusions. Ad hominen arguments ought not to carry much weight, but they are sometimes powerful nevertheless. On occasion you give the impression that what you want is vengeance on anyone in authority rather than calm debate of the issues. Others may see that differently of course. I wish you well, but I see little point in pretending that I think you are capable of collaborating effectively on a project of this nature.

In short, I can't see an RfC passing at this point. Ben MacDui 10:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

MacDui, I actually wasn't hinting at you with regard to lowering of enthusiasm, for whatever that's worth. But I would argue that lowering of involvement is exactly the wrong thing to happen at this time. I agree with you that the recent edits to the Guide have been a mess, but if more editors than just me pitch in, it will become clearer what community consensus really is. It seems to me that the recent comments by Lambanog, BillReid, and SilkTork speak volumes, and that needs to be heard. I actually think it will, with adequate consensus, be quite easy to shape up the proposal into a form that will be enthusiastically embraced by the community. I just don't think that I have anything approaching a mandate from the community to take it on myself to hit the revert button. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Bill Reed's stab at me above (without him even "being bothered" to look at the detail!) was a victory for your unceasingly-demeaning rhetoric towards me. Congratulations. Silktork has always said the same thing. All Lambanog did was criticise "decentralising" the discussion via the querying messages I sent out (re VOTE 2) - but YOU forced me to do that by demanding there was ambiguity the poll data! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If that is the way you characterize what those three editors actually said, one can only wonder how you will characterize the comments you collect from users' talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with accuracy? My plan is to stick with it and hope it wins through. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
We have achievied a great deal, and it is only the threshold percentage that keeps returning. I'm not sure if it is going in 'circles' though, it has just been protracted, but will hopefully be settled soon. The Canvassing matter simply needs input - I will bring it here later today if it gets no attention at CDA/talk. Your desire for discussion before movement and wider input is certainly welcome from me. I would like the percentage threshold higher only to meet the wider consensus, and I'm in the 'slowly and surely' camp, as you know!
I strongly feel that the tighter the proposal, the less complaints people against CDA will have to raise at the RfC. I accept that I am going to take the blame from a few people here if CDA fails. I feel that I always was going to be that person since I started to interact, but that is a bonus isn't it? If anyone claims I'm personally out for 'vengeance', leave me to deal with that. I've always said that a properly formed CDA will be hardly used, and is a form of accountability that will stand more as a 'deterrent' - and is about the weakest one we could realistically formulate, but will still be an essential one all the same. If any admin claims to make 'tough' decisions, and say that they feel they won't be able to make them while the “threat” of CDA hovers over them – they are merely proving that they should not be those braver type of admin. CDA have masses of safeguards in place, and Wikipedia must be put first - ie before the 'knighthood'. 99% of admin should have nothing to fear at all, and neither really should these excessive hardmen either, as they will simply have to learn to operate with more consideration. You know, that all-too-convenient and editor-demeaning "I'm the Sherif Badass" culture on Wikipedia simply has to addressed – if I am opening myself to up to claims of 'vengeance' by saying that aloud, then so be it. I would expect and demand evidence to go with such a claim, if someone was silly enough to directly accuse me.
Providing we sort the Canvassing problem out, most serious admin matters will be sorted out prior to CDA. With no proper Canvassing rules, things could get way too dramatic in the pre-certification (or even pre-signature) stages, which could seriously diminish the chances of achieving a natural pre-CDA solution. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't come across this discussion before. It certainly is... long. Hard to review etc. i checked out the proposal (personally i believe the de-sysop process should be easier than this, but i'm happy to accept consensus is against me). It is a little rough at the edges and is itself rather long, but seems to cover major points. I think discussion about the exact percentage figures is getting too pedantic here. The draft text: "As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above 80% support for removal are passed, while most of those below 65% fail, and the area in between is subject to Bureaucratic discretion" seems fine. My one policy process concern is this: how does something attract 10 signatures of editors in 7 days, if the first signatory complies with WP:CANVASS, and there is no general notification process for editors? It's a very tough threshhold to cross, and given the very high percentages of editors who are going to have to turn up at the actual discussion/poll in order for a de-sysop to occur, seems to me creating a de-facto two-stage process. Other than that, what the proposal needs is a good copyedit. At the moment the English is idiosyncratic, and may be off-putting during the RfC. People need to feel confident that the wording is precise and clear. Can I suggest we try and pursuade a couple of our best copyeditors, like BrianBoulton, to get on the case, and then move on to the next stage? Examples of poor expression:

  • "Bureaucrats are, explicitly, free to take into account rationales and discussion, etc etc" The double commas around one word are a pain; of course they are "explicitly" free to do so; it's what the policy itself is telling them; but "free" makes it sound like "you're free to do whatever". It should be written in (plain english) policy-speak. Eg. "Bureaucrats may take into account rationales and discussion, and discount any sockpuppetry or canvassing." Full stop. That's it.
  • "must have signed the nomination personally, and within the 7 day period for their signatures to be valid." At the least, there's a missing comma. Why not just "Must sign the nomination within the 7 day period." Again, full stop. If you "must" do something, then by definition if you didn't, it isn't valid.

I think that sort of clean-up should actually be the priority now. Those are my thoughts. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RE the copy editing: CDA is being slowly re-written as new sections are focused on. You should have read it a month ago is all I can say! Anyone can have a go though - it's not 'locked' to anything, but "(needs discussion)" is added to serious (ie not just copy) changes, leaving them alongside the old edit....
Have you read the Canvassing section on the CDA talk page (here)? I think Canvassing is the biggest problem with CDA as it stands.
Regarding 80% I would be happy with that too if it wasn't for only about 38% of people voting for it in tje highly attended 'finalisation poll'. The rest wanted a higher percentage, with some good reasons given (the results are in this section (part D) just above). 85% is a 'compromise consensus', and for me 'consensus' is the magic word. Unless we can show we have a decent consensus for all the many elements of CDA, they will be picked apart at the community vote by its many openents (there was a quite highly attended 'Motion to Close' the proposal in Dec, that was doing well for a while and eventually lost 2:1). And rightly so, imo. Consensus is what it's all about. When we finally jump the threshold percentage hurdle most of this page will be archived, and things will look (and be) a lot better. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Also about copyediting, some of the sections to which you (Hamiltonstone) refer have been modified by one editor recently, but have not yet been reviewed by other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Both the copy issues Hamiltonstone raised were existing ones (ie where me and NJA have not revised the 'hallowed' original text that you and MacDui like so much).
You have actually edited the CDA proposal the most Tryptofish, but I don't recall you being subject to any curious "review process". If you don't like my own last copy edits then fine, but you shouldn't speak for other people (though you always seem to). Unless you know something about any latent cabalistic behaviour that I don't? The earliest of my recent (pretty benign) group of edits have been up there a week now, and normally contested stuff gets challended, reverted or improved within a day. I'm happy to debate over copy, it's what I've done throughout my Wikipedia life. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(First, my apologies for accidentally hitting rollback a moment ago when I was intending to make this reply. Just a mouse error, which I have self-reverted.) I am not the person who is speaking for or misrepresenting what other editors have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I live in fear of the rollback tool - it was opened to me by a well-meaning admin, but on my laptop I worry about sticking on it all the time. Matt Lewis (talk)
Well, at least we see eye-to-eye on that! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, Tryptofish. Are you two ever on irc, msn, skype, or etc? Because I'd like to talk with you both in real time, if possible. Let's see if we can cut the gordian knot.--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kim, no, I never use those types of communication with regard to Wikipedia. In part, I do that for the same reason that I never touch Wikipedia Review: I disapprove of back-channel communication as part of the editing process. My other reason is that, aside from my editing related to CDA, I also edit pages where I make difficult edits, and consequently am extremely protective about not being outed. In fact, I regularly receive quasi-death threats on my talk. So, no. I have not replied to your questions higher on this talk page because they appear to me to be unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how Skype etc would help, as we've repeated out differences over and over now. They are fundamental and almost philosophical. For me the 'consensus compromise' based on the community-that-is-present must come before any theory about what the community-at-large may or may not want. We also disagree on the interpretaion of the poll results - but I am working on that with via sending out querying messages. I can't do more than that, though as usual I'm getting some grief for it! Such is CDA.

Swonk had a good attempt at compromising using "5:1", but it's untried and is too much of a gamble at this late stage. The compromise for me is already 85% - I can't compromise on a compromise. If we settled on 85% nobody at all would complain, and we could archive all the vote analysis above - which is (or was) most of this over-long page.

If we then talk about the Canvassing section (and fix the FAQ a little - easily done) I'll personally back out, as at that point I can't see anything else that needs to be done, other than deleting the weird and confusing 'Reader Tips', as we need to lose all ambiguity, however 'friendly' it appears.

Others may step in with added issues of course - but I personally wouldn't, unless someone brings up something compelling, which has happened a few times since early Jan (a good thing). I'll accept whatever consensus there is on Canvassing, as I accept consensus on everything. And I argue strongly when I see we don't have it, like now. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm compiling the results for querying the VOTE 2 poll results. I personally see no need to rush something as important as CDA, as I've always said, but if Tryptofish wants to hurry things up he can just simply accept 85%. It is all it will take. One man - one compromise. Nobody else has actaully objected to 85% but him, but I can't risk 3RR on the CDA page when I've personally been so compromised as an editor - and one who has simply stuck by Wikipedia Policy and has refused to ignore it. I've also been told by someone involved that my reverting is being looked at, though I've only done reverted on two important matters. If I felt I could, I'd have inserted 85% into the proposal a couple of weeks ago now. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what keeps happening. Matt complains that I allegedly try to speak for other editors (I don't), and then he tries to speak for me. I never said I want to "hurry things along." It was me who repeatedly said "there is no deadline" when others were complaining earlier about Matt's methods. I've repeatedly said here that I'm willing to wait and see the results of Matt's latest survey. And what is this nonsense about me being the only editor objecting? Matt seems quite willing to mispeak for other editors when he wants to disregard what they have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish man, you are always speaking for others. The latest was when you had the gall to suggest that my edits to the CDA page are still awaiting people's "review" (after up to a week now?). You pretend others are unhappy with 85% Who else is? Name one person who hasn't said or suggested that could accept 85%. It is you alone who is stopping 85%, and most of this page being archived - which you know is what people want. It's outrageous. You alone have said "above 80% is unacceptable".
All the the things you do (like stalling CDA, starting this negative "this has stalled" section) you then seem in some way blame on me, like all this ensuing drama. Now you say I am wrongly speaking for others (here and on your talk). Try absorbing criticism without immediately reflecting it backwards why don't you? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed copyedits[edit]

I propose the following changes. None are intended to vary the policy content of the proposal.

# Current proposed comment
1 The Community de-adminship (CDA) is a process where the community as a whole may request the removal of administrator ("sysop") rights from an account. Community de-adminship (CDA) is a process for requesting the removal of administrator ("sysop") rights from an account. technically, the request is not made by the community as a whole: it is made by ten editors, the community makes an assessment, and a Bureaucrat implements a decision rule (that has a discretionary element). This wording is simpler and more technically correct.
2 CDA request is formatted as a nomination (by 10 editors, all with a minimum of three months and 500 edits experience, or by the Arbitration Committee) CDA request is formatted as a nomination (by 10 eligible editors or by the Arbitration Committee) Don't clutter up the introduction with detail spelt out later.
3 followed by an accompanying outcome poll and discussion followed by an accompanying poll and discussion what is an "outcome poll"??
4 The decision to de-sysop will be based on whether there is a clear consensus to do so The decision on whether to de-sysop will be based on consensus simpler.
5 Dispute resolution should proceed through the normal channels. Disputes with an administrator must be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels such as third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration. Disputes with an administrator must be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels such as third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration. remove repetition, and emphasise discussion.
6 Community de-adminship is designed to ascertain whether the community still trusts an administrator with the 'sysop right' after various behaviour has been brought to light. Community de-adminship ascertains whether the community still trusts an administrator with the 'sysop right'. that last phrase is just wierd. I can't come up with a better alternative, but wondered if it is in fact not needed at all here.
7 CDA will likely result in the intense scrutiny of all parties involved, and the bright light shone on an administrator will reflect upon all the nominators in cases of misuse CDA will result in the intense scrutiny of all parties involved. The bright light shone on an administrator will reflect upon all the nominators in cases of misuse minor simplication. would like to come up with something better here, but i can't think what.
8 Nominations are made by creating a sub-page of Wikipedia:Community de-adminship, which is named after the account being nominated. Nominations are made by creating a sub-page of Wikipedia:Community de-adminship named after the administrator account being nominated. grammar was confusing.
9 must have signed the nomination personally, and within the 7 day period for their signatures to be valid. Must sign the nomination within the 7 day period This is a rule - by definition, not complying with it means something is not valid
10 Editors under a block restriction can be temporarily unblocked by an uninvolved administrator upon request, provided they were blocked by the administrator being reviewed and the nomination is materially related to that block. The block will be lifted for the duration of, and the sole purpose of participating in, the CDA. Delete (from under heading "Anyone may participate in the discussion" Appears to duplicate earlier content.
11 Note that the 10 original nominations to start the CDA can no longer be stricken. Note that the 10 original nominations to start the CDA can not be stricken. This is within the section on "discussion and poll", so the simpler language appears adequate
12 In either case, the Bureaucrat will close the discussion, recording the outcome, and archive it. In either case, the Bureaucrat will close the discussion, recording the outcome and archiving it.
13 Bureaucrats are, explicitly, free to take into account rationales and discussion, and to discount any and all forms of sockpuppetry and canvassing to recruit people who are not part of the Wikipedia editor community (including single-purpose accounts created for the purpose). Bureaucrats may take into account rationales and discussion, and discount any sockpuppetry or canvassing. Bureaucrats and Admins are experienced Wikipedians. This is all that is needed to be clear.
14 Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the discussion period in order to obtain wider input, or to allow on-going active discussions to continue in order to reach a better consensus. Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the discussion period in order to obtain wider input, or to allow on-going active discussions to continue in order to reach consensus. What, better than the one they don't like? :-)

Separately, I invite comments on the use of the expression 'sysop right' rather than, say, 'admin tools'. If this is a discussion that has been gone over before, whack me with a trout and give me a link, and I won't mention it again! Another general comment: some great consistency may be needed in the use of italics, bold etc for emphasis. But that can be done later.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I probably prefer "admin tools", but sysop right seems to have the 'top level' seriousness that those using it want, which is fair enough I think. I don't mind either. I take it that people add comments to the comment box? (if so could you sign each one?) cheers. Or number the rows! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RE 1: "community as a whole" in the first line: we need to stress the community aspect, as it's crucial to CDA. If we have a 'threshold' percentage then the community can realistically remove an admin. Despite being a 'rule of thumb' auto-desysop percentage, this is central to the CDA we have now - as admin will consider the 'community trust' being lost, and the deal essentially being done (so no time will be spent on judgement). Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 2: "500 edits and 3 months" etc in Intro.. maybe delete it, but it seems harmless to me. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 4: "clear consenus" - I prefer using "clear" as there are different strengths of consensus. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 5:"Dispute channels" - the problem here is suggesting that people "must" do all of these things, which would be unfiar in some cases. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 7: "various behaviour has been brought to light." - it's better to re-phrase it than lose it I think (though it may not be needed like you say). CDA is not just a community vote on removing any admin's status. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 9: "7 days" line - people seem to like "personally" (this seems to gets rewritten a lot). Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 10: the block restriction comments - they are not duplicates: one is for the nominiation stage, the other is for the discussion and polling stage (two distinct matters). Some important things can handle a little duplication in any case. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 11: "can no longer be stricken" over "can not" - I prefer the current edit as it is more accurate and fluid (and using "struck" ideally, being British). Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 12: the singular "archive" - I prefer it I think. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 13: "Bureaucrats": All references to Canvassing need to be ironed out - I don't think making it simpler helps, as WP:CANVASSING doesn't quite suite CDA. Matt Lewis (talk)

RE 14: dropping "better" in "better consensus", maybe "stronger" is a better term. There can certainly be different strengths of consensus. Matt Lewis (talk)

The other 3 inbetween seem simple enough ce's. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Here is my feedback. First, about what hamilton said about trout and all that, no, no need for trout, as you are actually being very helpful. But, no surprise, there is a lot of history here, so let me inflict on you give you some links. There is an archive of discussion by a lot of editors, where the background of several of the points you raised can be found. Please let me also point out this version of the draft policy. It predates the most recent edits that were made, and I think you will find that some of the things you were correcting were actually introduced by those most recent edits, and were actually fixed before. Then, to the specifics:

1: I agree with Matt's comment about it.

2: If you look at that archive, you will find that a lot of editors felt very strongly about the 500 edits.

3: I agree entirely: delete "outcome".

4: I don't feel strongly, but I tend to agree with what Matt said.

5: A virtue of the existing language is that this is a section about what CDA is not. So the point is that CDA is not dispute resolution. Dispute resolution is something else.

6: I agree with hamilton. That would be an improvement.

7: Please look at the earlier version to which I linked. There are two possible versions there, that were still being discussed but are not preserved in the most recent version. If you go to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship#Before nomination, you will see the most recent discussion between me and NJA.

8: I agree. That's an improvement.

9: This has been a perennial point of what may well be quibbling.

10: Actually, I think that this problem was introduced by the most recent edits, and there was not such a problem in the earlier version to which I linked.

11: See, again, the earlier draft, which may perhaps have been better.

12: A small point, but hamilton's suggestion is fine with me.

13: No, there was a lot of discussion of this and all those details need to be there, if not for the Bureaucrats, then for the members of the community who will !vote on the proposal and will be concerned about the associated issues.

14: Not a big deal. Maybe "clearer" would be better than "better"?

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with nearly all of that, except 10 being a problem - I think the two mentions are different and fine. 11 may be improved again perhaps, but I think that it was an improvement itself on the preceeding copy. Happy with "clearer" for 14. I hoped 7 was a fair amalgamation of yours and NJA's favoured points, while moving from the difficult issue of prose (for this) into prose/bullets. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do answer my questions to you[edit]

From my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


You recently stated: "I have not replied to your questions higher on this talk page because they appear to me to be unhelpful."

I'm sorry to hear you feel that my questions are unhelpful, but I disagree, and I think that on re-reading in good faith you will find them to be constructive.

At this point, I would like to insist that you answer them. I'm going to put some teeth to my request now.

Note that the User Conduct RFC requirements are as follows: "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."

In general, on wikipedia, it is wiser to answer questions somewhat badly or after some delay rather than not answer them at all. If you do not answer questions asked of you, then it is de-facto true that one will have tried but failed to solve the problem one wished to discuss with you.

I have been fairly polite; but I think I'm being clear that I do not accept your easy answers, and want you to stop and think some more.

I'm still giving you plenty of room and chances to do so.

Also, obviously, I cannot and will not force you to chat in real time if you really don't want to. You are right that such conversation happens to be off wiki, and nothing forces you to discuss things outside the wiki.

However, if you want to be taken seriously, and do not wish to be sanctioned, you must not fail to answer those questions asked of you on the wiki.

I want to stress here that my prime objective is not to throw the book at you (though I will if I need to), my prime objective is to remain in conversation with you, and I hope to bring things to an amicable end.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps there is something in the drinking water. Kim, who has made it clear that he does not support the proposal being developed, has been asking questions which appear to me to be unhelpful. While I think that every editor has the right to demand that someone answer a question, every editor also has the right to ignore such demands. But it appears that the sport du jour is to threaten an RfC/u against me. Or maybe Kim is just lonesome. Anyway, I've transposed the latest message from my user talk to here, so that other editors can see it for themselves. And here are the Q&A:

1. Why are you taking comments for others, and not on your own merit? (WP:WIARM says you are responsible for your own action or inaction)

I think that I have long since stopped doing anything that could be construed that way, no?

2. Why do you need to wait for the RFC? (I just said that was unwise, right? ;-) )

As I see it, and I think multiple editors agree with me, there are two parts to answering this. The first is that an RfC or something like it is the way to give the community as a whole the opportunity to decide whether or not to adopt the proposal as policy, and I value that aspect of how decision making is done at Wikipedia. The other is that, strictly speaking, I am not so much waiting for an RfC as I am waiting for some clarity here as to what would be the best proposal to take to an RfC. People don't always seem to hear me when I say it, but I have said repeatedly that I am perfectly willing to wait and see what information comes back from Matt's survey. I have also said that I wish more editors would get involved in helping with the nitty-gritty of the wording, as opposed to either sitting back or asking questions such as these.

3. Why can't you help make a working system right now? :-)

If you have a real suggestion, please come out and say it. Otherwise, it seems to me that we do not have a consensus yet to enact a proposal such as this. It also seems to me that the status quo can be made better if a proposal such as this were to be enacted as policy.

OK, Kim, I've indulged you. And if you threaten me again, I will throw the book at you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish. I'm sorry I had to put on some thumbscrews. When you don't answer people's questions (even those you don't like), that's a bright line case of tried-and-failed-to-resolve-the-problem, warranting an RFC/U by default. I haven't threatened you so much as stood on my rights. I've warned you about the consequences of your actions, should you persevere. If you don't communicate adequately, the system fails, so the system places penalties on failure to communicate adequately.
In conclusion you're not indulging me, but rather meeting the bare minimum requirement for consensus, to wit: you're actually communicating with me again. I hope you'll also choose to communicate more with others.
That said, I'm happy that you did choose to communicate.
I'm not necessarily opposed to CDA itself by the way. I'm just unhappy with the inefficient process people are using to get somewhere useful.
In response to your answers:
  1. I'm happy to hear you've started standing up for yourself more. :-)
  2. I think you may have some misconceptions about how decision-making is done on wikipedia. People on this page are currently going around the long way, and for each obstacle, they're going around the long long way on top of that. That's not really an effective process. We can shorten it considerably by making use of the features the wiki provides us. Do you want to give that a try?
  3. Wikipedia policy doesn't work along the lines of "enacting of proposals" in general. It works along the lines of Consensus. Let me elaborate:
We can start a test system whenever we like, even right now. Due to the fact that the (proposed) process works by building consensus in the first place, we don't need consensus to build consensus to build consensus. We can skip right ahead to the part where we're actually building consensus (to deadmin or not).
Now, no matter whether we start tests now or later, we'll probably find that our numbers need tweaking anyway, or even that the process as proposed now probably needs a lot of rewriting. I'm not saying that that's what we will find out. I'm not even saying I expect those things per-se. I'm just saying that experience shows that no system is initially perfect. There are things we can only find out in practice, so my modest proposal is that that's where we should boldly go to find them out.
The nice thing is that the consensus system actually allows us to do so, provided we tread carefully.
Does what I'm saying here seem logical to you? If so, we can pull up our sleeves and get right down to it. Else I'll be glad to talk more first.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
At this point, as I've said, I'm actually not in any rush, and am content to see what shows up on this page. I've got some time to spare. So, I'll bite. Nothing to lose by seeing what you have to say. I suspect that it will say more about you than about me. I gather you didn't like my illustration that you deleted. Pity. Let me first correct some things that you appear not to understand.
"warranting an RFC/U by default": Actually, no, nothing warrants drama by default. If there were actually a dispute between us, something in which you felt that I were causing you harm, then you would have had reason to come to my talk and threaten me as you did. But there was no dispute between you and me. A disagreement about the subject being discussed here, yes, and a resistance by me to commenting where you wanted because I genuinely believe it to be counterproductive, yes, but one does not resolve those matters by running to dispute resolution.
"you're not indulging me": Whatever you say. Would "feeding" be a better verb?
"but rather meeting the bare minimum requirement for consensus": Oh, I see. This talk page is too short. Thank you for explaining that to me.
"I'm happy to hear you've started standing up for yourself more.": Be careful what you wish for.
OK, so let's get to your numbers 2 and 3. Honestly, I do not know, really, what you mean. Are you suggesting picking an administrator and bringing that individual up for some kind of discussion, and demonstrating that the community wants to de-sysop that person? If that is what you mean, please explain how you would go about it. I don't know whether or not I would want to give it a try, unless I know what "it" is. And please understand what I am interested in. It is not for me to somehow "enact a proposal". It is, rather, to work towards consensus for the community, together, to enact a proposal. That's an important difference. Otherwise, I would probably have edit warred against Matt when he was reverting MacDui's attempt to start the RfC. Instead, I've been encouraging editors to get involved in figuring out what I consider to be the issues that may remain unclear, albeit not according to your system (whatever that is). I like that aspect of consensus building here.
But there's another point you made, that I strongly agree with and want to draw attention to. You commented that it is likely that whatever we might write, experience will show that it will need tweaking and rewriting. That's so true. As much as I like the idea of polishing a draft and anticipating and correcting the errors that can be anticipated and corrected, I also recognize that there comes a time when it becomes a matter of diminishing returns to have one more rewrite, one more poll, one more argument. I'm actually glad that you pointed that out. And I hope that other editors will take note of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- At a recent Wikiquette alert, it was found that posting insulting images can be counter-productive. And I'm happier if you stand up for yourself against me, than not stand up at all.
This is the consensus gathering process (polls/discussion) to build a consensus gathering process (RFC) to build a consensus gathering process (actual CDA)... which in the end de-admins someone.
My modest proposal is simply to skip the Rube-Goldberg-esque in-between steps and actually just gather consensus the once to deadmin our hypothetical or real bad apple, when it is needed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My head is still spinning a bit from Jusdafax's modest proposal, so please let me gather my thoughts so I can respond to your comments. OK, I've caught my breath. Well, look at this: I have some questions I have to ask you. Really, I don't understand what you are proposing. If we were to do that with a "hypothetical" person, how would we do it? I cannot picture that. Would we "create" a set of fictional circumstances regarding such a person? How would we decide what to say that person did, and what that person did not do? How would we be able to generalize from one specific hypothetical to other real persons? On the other hand, if we do it with a real person, who do you have in mind? After all, this is your idea. And I have more questions. If, as I gather at this point in the conversation, your thinking is that you would like to try this sort of trial run (please correct me if I misunderstand), why did you choose to ask me all of these questions, and make threats against me, in order to lead up to it? Would it not have been simpler just to come to this talk and announce that you would like to run such a trial run? Why all the lead-up? And, for that matter, given your expressed view that one need not go through this kind of discussion before rolling up one's sleeves and giving it a try, why have you contacted me about it at all? Please understand, I'm flattered, but I hardly consider myself that important. You could just go ahead on your own and carry out the kind of trial run you contemplate, and seek to demonstrate consensus by doing that. Surely, you do not think you need my permission to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@Tryptofish if you would like to read the archives, and page history, you'll see I tried the nice-guy approach, the step-by-step approach, the rational approach. None was working, certain people kept blinders on and didn't want to talk. I told you off this week because I happened to catch you crossing a bright line. If others do the same, I'll tell them off too. So no, you're not hugely important, just caught red-handed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Gee, you sound hot under the collar. Actually, I have read the archives. And, for what it's worth, I have read everything you have written there, and even responded some times. The fact that you didn't get the results you were hoping for might just mean that you failed to convince other editors, not that other editors were ignoring you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Why would I be hot under the collar? I'm following straightforward procedure, and not doing anything particularly novel or surprising, this kind of thing isn't rocket science and I've been doing it for a long time.  :-)
Thanks for reading the archives. You'll probably have noticed that I actually did manage to reach consensus with Jehochman to make some simple changes to streamline other processes; should this proposal fail. In at least one other case, I was attacked by people assuming bad faith. The latter was less than stellar. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Getting a guinea-pig for a trial run is impossible. Using a 'pretened' administrator is a no go. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@Goodday: Yes, I rather had that sneaking suspicion people were missing some elephants in the room. Can you explain why it's impossible, according to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I do have a trunk, but that doesn't make me an elephant. How would ya create 'phoney administrator'? it would need an edit-history. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to test on real data, how about (somewhat) anonymized Arbcom cases? As a control, we could just also add editors that arbcom had commended. As for my other point: how come we can't we get a real editor? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
A fictional administrator won't do. If you can convince a real administrator to submit to such a test? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As people may perceive a CDA to be against their best interests, I don't think we would be able to get a volunteer. Can we bind someone to take part somehow? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia forbids it. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I didn't think it was forbidden per-se, but I might have missed something. Can you tell me what the basis is for that statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't force an administrator to be the subject of your proposed test. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is neither forbidden nor permitted afaik, it's just not done. The problem is: if we can't force an admin now, we can't force them later either. So this is a problem that needs solving or CDA will never work. <scratches head> . Perhaps we can bounce off of some existing procedure? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just 'one' cookie in the jar. If ya wanna run your test, 'tis up to you. You'll need 9 editors to support you, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh but GoodDay, those 9 editors would only be called for after a proposal such as CDA were enacted, if it were. Kim seems to be proposing to go ahead and do it on his own. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In that case, it wouldn't be a true test of the CDA. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. If I understand correctly, Kim is saying we should jetison CDA and just do something with existing infrastructure. It's far from clear to me how anyone could actually do that, if they really wanted to. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, but I nearly forgot! There was something you and I started to talk about above, that I think is really important! In fact, I think it might help with Jusdafax's point below, as well. I'll just repeat what I said above: "But there's another point you made, that I strongly agree with and want to draw attention to. You commented that it is likely that whatever we might write, experience will show that it will need tweaking and rewriting. That's so true. As much as I like the idea of polishing a draft and anticipating and correcting the errors that can be anticipated and corrected, I also recognize that there comes a time when it becomes a matter of diminishing returns to have one more rewrite, one more poll, one more argument. I'm actually glad that you pointed that out. And I hope that other editors will take note of it." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Jusdafax is even more impatient than I am. So it looks like those hopefully not-so-hypothetical editors have 'till the 19th. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
But Kim, I asked you some questions, and you didn't answer them yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Link/ Ref/ Copy? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
[7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have already responded to that query. On what key points would you like me to go more in depth? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you only answered some parts of it. Here are the parts I consider unanswered: "If, as I gather at this point in the conversation, your thinking is that you would like to try this sort of trial run (please correct me if I misunderstand), why did you choose to ask me all of these questions, and make threats against me, in order to lead up to it? Would it not have been simpler just to come to this talk and announce that you would like to run such a trial run? Why all the lead-up?... You could just go ahead on your own and carry out the kind of trial run you contemplate, and seek to demonstrate consensus by doing that. Surely, you do not think you need my permission to do so?" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why did you choose to ask me all of these questions?
    Because I wanted to understand your position in more depth before I came with my own proposal. (so I could adjust my position to reach consensus more quickly).
  • (slight paraphrase) Why did you make threats against me?
    You explicitly stated that you refused to answer my questions, thereby stopping the consensus process in its tracks. That is sanctionable behavior . I informed you of the fact, I was not specifically threatening you. Merely not answering a question is very hard to sanction in-and-of-itself. However, when you explicitly say you will not answer, you provide proof that you are deliberately blocking a person's attempts at reaching consensus (all else being equal).
  • Would it not have been simpler just to come to this talk and announce that you would like to run such a trial run?
    This part is already answered adequately, I think. I have already done several things in the manner you suggest. This fact is documented in the archives, which you have read. The approach didn't work as well as it should have here, so I'm stepping back and trying to explicitly reach consensus with key participants in this process.
  • Surely, you do not think you need my permission to do so?
    Not necessarily, no. However, sometimes it's nicer to talk things through with people. :-)
If you have further questions for me, I'll gladly answer them.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You say that you adjusted your proposal based on what I said in my answers. What were the adjustments that you made? Please list them. Surely there are times when an editor can decline to answer questions, without it being a "sanctionable" impediment to consensus. How then, for example, can editors "not feed the trolls"? Did you consider that I and other editors simply were not persuaded that your questions were useful, that you had failed to persuade us? Given that you have said that you disapprove of the discussion here, why did you think that my assent to your proposal was needed for you to pursue it, why was my agreement necessary for you to have consensus? Do you really think that informing someone of sanctions is not a threat? Why did you single me out for demanding these answers, would not another editor have been able to provide you with useful answers? You point out that you have made comments in this talk in the past, which is certainly true, but I asked you why you did not initiate a trial run of the sort you are now proposing, not about why you did not say more in this talk. Why would my answers to your questions have been needed before initiating such a trial run? Aren't you contradicting yourself when you say, on the one hand, that I was preventing consensus by not answering your questions, but, on the other hand, that we should bypass all the discussion here and just go ahead with your trial run? Why was my not answering such an impediment, but ignoring all the issues still being discussed by editors here something you would describe as a ship that has already sailed? (Stepping back? Actually, that was the phrase that I used when I said that I wanted to know what other editors would say about the areas where I was seeking consensus.) I didn't realize when you commented at my talk that you were being "nice". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would have been nice if you'd started out a bulleted list for me, if you want to ask so many questions. I suspect you're pushing WP:POINT a bit here. Are you?

  • You say that you adjusted your proposal based on what I said in my answers. What were the adjustments that you made? Please list them.
    I said I adjusted my position, and then came with a proposal. My questions allowed me to determine some things. Question 1. You hadn't agreed to act as some sort of " official spokesperson" (so were free to say what you wanted) 2. You explained your view on RFCs work. Apparently you think they're integral to wikipedia process. (In reply, I clarified that they were not). 3. You stated you were looking for a real suggestion. (That's a good request. So I made one).
  • Surely there are times when an editor can decline to answer questions, without it being a "sanctionable" impediment to consensus.
    Certainly, but that's an exception, not the rule. If an editor is trying to reach consensus with you, declaring that you won't cooperate with them is generally frowned upon.
  • How then, for example, can editors "not feed the trolls"?
    Trolls are not normal editors acting in good faith. You only need to answer editors acting in good faith.
  • Given that you have said that you disapprove of the discussion here, why did you think that my assent to your proposal was needed for you to pursue it, why was my agreement necessary for you to have consensus?
    I have not said that I disapprove of the discussion here. I have said that I disapprove of some of the ways in which the discussion is being conducted. For example: You've just noticed that I disapprove of people ignoring relevant good faith questions from legitimate editors, at an earlier time I also made notes about over(ab)use of polling, which can actually make it harder to reach consensus, and I've made comments about use of heavyweight procedures where lightweight alternatives could be substituted.
  • Do you really think that informing someone of sanctions is not a threat?
    It doesn't need to be. It's the system that does the sanctioning, not the individual. As an individual I can only warn you what will happen.
  • Why did you single me out for demanding these answers, would not another editor have been able to provide you with useful answers?
    I did not single you out. I expect everyone on wikipedia to answer my questions, within reason. I have asked a lot of people a lot of questions since 2003. :-)
  • You point out that you have made comments in this talk in the past, which is certainly true, but I asked you why you did not initiate a trial run of the sort you are now proposing, not about why you did not say more in this talk.
    The best example is where Jehochman actually implemented changes directly to policies. We're now at a different point, and a different practical approach is required. (also as indicated by your own position)
  • Why would my answers to your questions have been needed before initiating such a trial run?
    Because discussion with persons-of-interest is part of the consensus process. (see also: WP:BRD for a discussion of persons-of-interest)
  • Why was my not answering such an impediment ...
    When you stopped answering questions in my attempt to reach negotiated consensus with you, that was an impediment in my attempt to reach negotiated consensus with you yourself. I had a similar issue with one of the other editors, but they seem to have sorted themselves out now. Other editors appear to be doing ok at collaborating.
  • but ignoring all the issues still being discussed by editors here something you would describe as a ship that has already sailed?
    With the words "ship already sailed" I was referring to people endlessly pushing back the "deadline". While I generally dislike deadlines, in this case I believe one is warranted.
  • I didn't realize when you commented at my talk that you were being "nice".
    Seriously, I'm being terribly nice. I'm just being a bit more firm now, because otherwise people are going to just ignore me and continue to not make progress. This means I don't let people get away with misbehavior that they *could* get away with before. I'm sad if that makes people mildly unhappy, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a site specifically for discussion; we're here to actually collaborate on building something.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pointy? No, I'm trying to help you understand better how this discussion should work best. Actually, I think some of your answers here were very good, while others were playing with words in lieu of really answering what I asked. I have to say that I appreciate some of the very helpful things you are now saying in regard to Jusdafax's plan of action, so thank you for that. I hope you keep up the good work, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Kim, right now, the proposal calls for 10 editors (nominators) to bring an Administrator to face CDA. If you're going to run a test? you'll need atleast 9 supporters. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Shoot. That's a pretty heavy impediment to ever doing a CDA. I can *try* to find 10 editors (once I find an evil target), but perhaps that number needs cutting down to size. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Finding editors could be construed as canvassing. 10 nominators, is a safe-guard against vengance-seeking editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Being Bold - I intend to submit 'Community de-adminship: The original Uncle G proposal' for RfC no later than Friday, Feb. 19[edit]

It's my view, and that of a number of others, that the Cda proposal is dying, if not dead, for reasons including WP:TLDR. Time to take positive action by going back to the roots!

The beauty of Uncle G's original proposal (which, sadly, I can't find a link to at this writing, could someone oblige me in this?) is that it is a simple Reverse Rfa, and quite easy to understand by RfC !voters.

It also cannot be blocked as a proposal in the RfC concept. It is a completely separate proposal from the current version. It was far and away the favorite of those informally !voting for the various proposals submitted last year, and also the only one with a substantial majority.

Therefore, I shall call it 'Community de-adminship': The original Uncle G proposal and put it on the RfC page no later than Friday, Feb. 19, 2010. I post this information as a simple courtesy, and welcome constructive comments. The key word there: 'constructive'.

Blessings to all, Jusdafax 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK - those of us who came late to this and diligently tried to work on the wording of the curernt proposal (if that is what it is) are a bit mystified by this. I have no idea what you're talking about. Can we get some links etc, including to the !vote from last year ( i don't think i knew there was one), and to the proposal you're talking about? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged, or worry about the above - a number of people won't accept two concurrent proposals I think. Too much work has gone into CDA since Jan. But if he manages to pull it off (and it can't see it helping either if he does), then I'll be there to inform people of this more developed and consensus-based CDA proposal.
Aa a background: Justafax was the main person who didn't want to see any work beyond [the early-Jan stage of the proposal] - there is a link in there to show Uncle G's proposal before the Dec amendments. The two other central people to CDA, MAcDui and Tryptofish, wanted to run CDA in Jan, but accepted that there was a desire to do more. Jusdafax has not been interested in the various elements of CDA being debated since early Jan, so he periodically posts to describe the proposal as being ruined. I think he genuinely believes that the longer we work on it the less chance it has - but there is just no actual evidence for that at all. It's effectively an un-Wikipedian attitude imo, as on Wikipedia consensus has to come before haste - or come before anything.
The "reverse RfA" (Request of Adminship) idea was not essential to CDA as a process, and it turned out there was not enough consensus in support of keeping it. At one point the percentages in RfA and CDA were similar, but supporting someone in an optimistic manner (RfA) and possibly removing a danger to Wikipedia (CDA) are two completely different matters - so 70% (Uncle G's amended proposal) was always too-high to start CDA at, and they were never realistically comparable in my opinion. Since the 'baseline' percentage was changed from 70% to 65% (per consensus in the Finalisation poll), it became simply unrealistic to call this CDA proposal a "reverse RfA". Even calling Uncle G's original CDA proposal a "Reverse WP:RfA" is (in my eyes) seriously misleading the community. No-one can start a CDA simply in order to remove an admin, let alone in a way similar to the way they can to create one. There are so many safeguards in CDA (even Uncle G's), that an admin is pretty much removing himself by his own actions, which he has failed to effectively defend either prior to or during a debate-filled CDA. I think calling CDA a "reverse RfA" it is actually disruptive to those who'd like to see a proper 'release' stage within the acual RfA process. RfA is reform a very serious matter to some people, and imo it will eventually adapt regardless of other processes like CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If people won't accept 2 proposals, the end result might be a failure of both. (due to consensus being against one proposal, for whatever the reasons; people will feel the other similar one has failed as well.)--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That would certainly be played upon at the second RfA. It's a huge gamble to run the less developed one (and one with actual holes in) first. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it'd be such a huge gamble at this stage; but assuming you're right, we still have up to 48 hours to negotiate the how and what and which RFC we can put up, right? :-) Jusdafix, what do you think? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafix: We could also skip the RFC phase if you like. Implement a page according to the design of either RFC document, and we can test it directly. You need consensus to deadmin someone anyway. The key realisation here is that the consensus you need to run the process is built right into the process itself. My question is whether we have a bad apple that needs to be deadminned at this point in time? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we look for a bad apple? CDA will be a natural process, where the Pre-CDA phase happens naturally, and will in most cases solve any problems. I don't envisage seeing CDA used that much at all to be honest. The simple existence of CDA is it's major aspect to me, but we can't really replicate that by jumping straight into a trial of the process in full. We would probably also have to change the proposal significantly to trial it directly, or all manner of objections could bring it down. What kind of CDA would you like to run? Would canvassing be involved? I think canvassing in the pre-signature stage will be the big hitch in practice. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You bring up solid points that we need to resolve, yes. I think they can be resolved in the doing, but the big issue is finding the bad apple in the first place. Is that a flaw in the base concept of CDA itself, do you think? <scratches head> I'm going to ponder on this for a bit. Ideas welcome.--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Note that these points are about actual CDA in practice! So they need solving; RFC or no RFC. It's definitely worth pondering.
Let me make a try at those questions. I think finding the "bad apple" could be a problem with Kim's proposed trial run, particularly if Kim does not have such a person in mind. But the CDA proposal is different. Kim's proposal is for something to do right away. CDA is a proposal for a policy that would be "on the books" for whenever it may be needed in the future, so the time urgency is not there. In the U.S. (where I happen to live), we have sections of the Constitution that spell out how the Vice-President could succeed the President, should the situation arise at some time, but there was no assumption that such a succession was going to take place right away after the amendment was ratified. Rather, sometimes it is useful to have a policy in place so that it will be there in the future when the time comes that it will be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Having a process on the books is not how wikipedia works. Please don't waste everyone's time. Every issue we find with a CDA test is also an issue with CDA. If we're having trouble figuring out how to actually make a CDA test actually work to improve admin behaviour now, we'll have trouble figuring it out later too. To be able to test at all, we may need to modify the proposal sharply (see above where I discussed / am discussing this with GoodDay). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not wasting anyone's time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference: Uncle G's original proposal, from 5 October 2009. Note its fundamental and striking similarity to the current proposal, which has (so far) consumed nearly four-and-a-half months of wrangling to incorporate five (or so) minor adjustments:

  • The nomination window has been lengthened from three days to seven;
  • Multiple nominations of the same admin within one year are now permitted;
  • Some (apparently still-contentious) language has been added which encourages 'crats to substitute vote-counting for their own judgement;
  • The ten nominators are no longer permitted to reconsider their votes(!); and
  • The minimum number of participants has been reduced from 100 to 50.

In other words, Uncle G's original process stands essentially unchanged, but for a few tweaks designed to make desysopping more likely as an outcome. There have been some cosmetic alterations to prettify the language, but you guys have basically been arguing about the bikeshed since last fall. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There has not been "four and a half months" of working on the CDA proposal. That is just wrong. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"strikingly similar"? Well, CDA as it stands now is the development from Uncle G's Version 1.0 I suppose! But you are simply misinforming people over how much it's changed. As I'm sure Jasdafax will agree, CDA now is a substantially different proposal to the one Uncle G began (which I'm sure he would admit was hardly a finished product).
Some additions amendments to CDA are:
  • The proposal no longer claims it is a "Reverse RfA".
  • The baseline percentage is now 65%, not 70%.
  • The threshold percentage of 80% is under review.
  • The canvassing section is under review.
  • The various copy editing has transformed the page: that is not something that is achieved over night.
  • Various changes have occurred which are not at all "minor" in the long run - they are all important.
  • Addressing what are "inactive accounts".
  • I'll add to these...
I have to say this: if there has been so much "slack time" with CDA, why am I working hard compiling the poll query results? Why have I worked on this virtually full-wiki-time since I found it in the new year? For EVERY STAGE of the CDA 'phase' of Admin Recall (andno-doubt before it) at least someone has been working reallyhard; whether Jusdafax, MacDui, Tryptofish or myself (from the current visible lot - and anyone else before or during, of course). I totally object to this idea that people have been too tardy with CDA - it's just not on. CDA is a massive thing for Wikipedia, and Rome was simply not built in a day. The idea of haste is totally un-Wikipedian. And CDA has never "stalled" - so why are we insulting those people still working on CDA by describing the process as "stalled"? CDA has always been 'on track', as people have always been positively working on it, whatever anyone's opinion of the latest debate. The concept of patience is vital. If people are "impatient types" (esp for something like CDA!!) they really shouldn't be here. Steady progress (which we have had) is the most that anyone has a right to ask for, and no-one has the right to crack a whip. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Matt's list of points seems to be redundant with mine. The first, fifth, and sixth bullets are all cosmetic prettification of language and style. Bullets two and three are fiddling with vote counts to limit the use of 'crat's judgement; that's my third point. Bullet four (canvassing) hasn't reached any conclusion. People are supposed to obey the canvassing guideline anyway, and aside from explicitly reminding people that it applies, the proposal doesn't have anything to say on the matter that wasn't in Uncle G's text.
Has anyone identified any changes to the proposed mechanism which aren't already on my list? (I'm looking for changes which actually change the way the process works.) It's taken more than four months to make five small process changes in a two-page document (four of which probably make the process less fair and more disruptive, but that's another argument). If it's not done now, and it's not going to be done Friday, when will it be done? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hell TenofallTrades!
I'll add to the list as promised - I have to waste time every day appeasing negative comments like this. You yourself brought up the Canvassing issue!!! You idea of "cosmetic prettification" are the very things you and others have been grumbling about. Uncle G (CDA's original proposer) has not effectively edited on Wikipedia since last October 2009. It is a gross exaggeration imo to say that CDA has been 'actively worked on' for 4 months. The whole operation just hasn't worked like that. I personally did not even notice CDA until the Motion to Close poll in late December. Why do you have this ever-present angry impatience when you have been so cynical towards CDA? It has never been helpful to me at least, and I can't see it tickling anyone else. You would not support Uncle G's proposal it it went to RfC on Friday anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Matt, I don't know whether or not you are still receptive to advice from me, but I hope that you'll consider this, per also my longer comment at the bottom. There's diminishing returns to be had by arguing with every criticism here; better to do so at the eventual RfC. Right now, I can say as someone who dreads what Jusdafax seems determined to do, that the best thing you, Matt, can do is to put this discussion out of your mind for a day or so, and focus on finishing your data collection and discussing that with me and whoever else. That way, we may be able to get a REAL proposal in front of the community, and prevent Jusdafax's bogus proposal from ruining everything. I hope you'll consider that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you've really accomplished something here: you have gotten me to agree with Matt and Kim simultaneously! In my opinion, what you are proposing to do is pointy, counterproductive, and kind of like throwing a tantrum. It would save everyone a lot of completely unnecessary drama to just work with me and others to fix what are, in reality, just a very few remaining issues, and then give the community something that will be an improvement on what Uncle G wrote. There is, indeed, a very real risk that your proposed action will turn the community against the whole concept of CDA in any form. Would you really want to do that, just to "get back" at editors whose discussions have been annoying you? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you consider my determination to move forward with the original proposal "pointy", Trypto, but I don't agree with your take. As Ten of Trades correctly notes (and thank you, Ten, for the link), the original concept has been fiddled with to the stage where the it, the original Uncle G concept, in my view is superior to the current mutated one.
You use other language I invite you to refactor.
An RfC is simply that: A Request for Comment. Since this current proposal has actually been put up for comment, then removed, it is clear to me that the time has come for fresh views to be brought in. Uncle G is an admin, and though it seems he is no longer active, his proposal is his own work, which I honor and champion. It cannot be removed from the RfC process because no one 'owns' it. I have every right to put it up on the RfC page, and fully intend to do so, as I say, no later than Friday, Feb. 19.
I am traveling today and can't go further with other concerns expressed above at this moment, but will return to this page in 10-12 hours. Jusdafax 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, looking on the bright side, Matt seems to have stopped calling me the bad guy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've never singled you out as a "bad guy" - I just react to your own comments! Jusdafax has (apart from the odd comment) stayed away from the project in protest since the finalisation poll. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how the fact that "Uncle G is an admin" gives any extra weight to his original draft copy over any subsequent revisions! Apart from him not being superior, he's only edited for 2 days since October 22nd 2009: Dec 27th (once) and Jan 2nd (7 edits). Matt Lewis (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, obviously my own proposal is my first choice, but I'm not opposed to Jusdafax as 2nd choice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Why would you back abandoning all the changes since early Jan? A huge ammount of work has been put into CDA, and it's a hugely improved proposal. CDA (unless new things come up) just needs a couple of things to iron out to meet consensus. There is no 100% correct CDA, but there is always the crucial matter of consensus. If Jusdafax tries again to simply ignore the wished of others, few people will support him apart from those ready to "Oppose" CDA at the RfA. That is a real danger that Jusdafax is overlooking - kindly 'support' for him could cheerily lead CDA off the plank. I do have to wonder at this point why you would support him yourself? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm wondering the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It sets a deadline, which I think is a contructive step at this point. As stated below I'd be willing to delay it by a bit to give folks some more realistic breathing space? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read the section below, and as of now I see no reason not to submit the original Uncle G version as intended, in about 36 hours. I repeat: with a few exceptions, I consider it a superior draft at this stage, and Ten's accurate observations above should give any honest evaluator pause. Jusdafax 08:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With some regret I have to agree with you. The current process shows very little sign of either ending or of producing a document that is significantly more likely to get approval in principle than the original. My advice would be to produce a short description of the process here to date, note the list of issues that have been discussed here (per TenOfAllTrades) and emphasise that before any implementation the process would be subject to the review by 'crats suggested here so that these issues can be considered. It is my guess that it won't succeed, but something of use may come of it. Ben MacDui 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben, I thank you. I had considered consulting you on your talk page, but for various reasons did not do so. I agree with every word you say with one exception: I believe the original Uncle G Cda proposal does have a chance to gain consensus approval in an RfC, by emphasizing that it is simply, at its core, a reverse RfA. In my view, most admins and editors will understand what the proposal is, and what it does, which I believe is no longer true with the current alleged emendation. Again, my thanks to you for seconding my motion, and for your excellent advice regarding it. Jusdafax 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You don't agree with him then - he is not "seconding your motion." at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Jusdafax, for what it's worth (which may not be much), I agree with MacDui that it will not likely succeed, but I disagree with him that something of use may come of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry MacDui, it is simply ignorant to say "there little sign of it ending", especially given my comment below on what (I personally think) we have left to do and how we are going to do it, which clearly made Tryptofish happy. Other people may bring things up, but so what? If you simply just want to rush things then that has nothing to do with you whatsover. TenofAlltrades has ignored a number of important changes to CDA (that would be taken apart in the RfA - partly by him given his past comments), and he just can't stop aggressively exaggerating in a condescending tone. There is evidence throughout of such comments, so he's no great support for you or Jasdafax here. He won't 'support' an early-version RfC either (or no-doubt the improved one).
For what it's worth, I personally would not vote for Uncle G's proposal given the various issues that have cropped up since early Jan. Too many holes (there is quite a number of them, and they were/are all important), "Reverse RfA" aspect is a misleading con, it is way too unprofessional looking to attract votes, it is proven to be non-consensus (esp the 70-80% percentage range - per a 77-voter-strong poll!), can't guarantee it will be effectively improved (given the amount it will need), and it is cynically implemented to prevent the improvements from happening. CDA is too important a matter to fuck around with. The Canvassing issue alone could bring CDA down (and make it to potentially drama-filled for me as it stands) - we have to deal with that. I wouldn't vote fro Uncle G's verson on that matter alone. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I've misled anyone about either my opinions on this proposal (in all its variants) or misrepresented its contents. You are welcome to disagree with my point of view.
This process is certainly closest to a "reverse RfA" in format (nomination, simultaneous vote and discussion, single question at issue, closure by bureaucrat after fixed time period), regardless of whether the term is used or not. Can anyone suggest another Wikipedia process which it more closely resembles in form or function?
The 'canvassing issue' can't be fixed, because a) there's no way to prevent gaming, and b) there's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube if there is a violation of the rules. Let's say Alice nominates Bob for desysopping.
  • Alice then posts a notice on Wikipedia Review, signing as new editor Charlie. We can't prove it's Alice, even if we do find out about it.
  • Alice also posts a single notification on the talk page of Dave, who is an editor in the contentious area of climate change/Irish nationalism/religion/what-have-you, and who had a run-in with Bob once. Eric, Francine, and George – friends of Dave who naturally have his talk page watchlisted – now have been effectively invited.
  • Alice sends a private email message to Harry. We never know.
  • Ivan, wanting to see the process fail (one way or the other) flagrantly and conspicuously violates WP:CANVASS. It's not Alice or Bob's fault, but now the process is tainted. The 'crat catches hell no matter what decision he makes.
There are many, many such holes. Simply saying Thou shalt follow WP:CANVASS doesn't resolve them; the elaborate system of notifications and record-keeping proposed by Matt won't work either. There isn't an effective way to monitor all communication channels to guarantee compliance, and there is no practical way to recover the situation after a problem arises. As long as the process relies on a count of self-selected voters, the canvassing problem can't be repaired.
Either version of the process is open to abuse. (Uncle G's at least had a cap of one CDA per admin per year, but apparently that wasn't sufficiently bloodthirsty.) Some proponents have offered that the mere existence of this process ought to be sufficient, and that it will hardly ever be used — its role will be to act as a threat to be used to bludgeon wayward admins into line. I will note the recent actions of Matt Lewis as the strongest argument against that sort of reasoning. In the last week, Matt has threatened RfC/Us against at least three other editors with whom he has had disagreements, and actually filed one. (It was deleted after failing to achieve certification; Matt blamed his failure to understand the RfC instructions and process on an old boys' club of admins.) This process will be disruptive in the hands of well-intentioned users with poor judgement, no malice required.
Finally, the process isn't necessary. We have an existing framework of policy and practice that allows desysopping by a number of routes — including some methods that would work but haven't been tried. (They're in the archives of these discussions.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
RE "(It was deleted after failing to achieve certification; Matt blamed his failure to understand the RfC instructions and process on an old boys' club of admins.)" A total lie. I said on every occasion that my quick RfC/u on MacDui's decision to very suddenly start the CDA rfc without notice did it's job. I have also made it clear that I did not pursue ratifying it in any way. I have also said that I offered to immediately retract it after MacDui accepted that we would like more time with CDA, but he decided to let the rfc/u run it's course. I was upset that an unashamed admin friend of MacDui asked MacDui (the accused) to "finish it for him", and did not bother to inform me until he actually did it! (a very telling, unprofessional and unadminlike approach by any standards - he just assumed I was a troll). I should actually have some respect for both doing the RfC/u, and for letting it go when it did its job. Yes, many admins have been behaving irresponsibly during the whole CDA proposal process. Regarding this latest misrepresentation by you Tenofalltrades: IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I WILL TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO NOT SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to? You MUST look at the reasons for them. As an admin you MUST WP:AGF regarding intent, until you know any better. It is just gross in Wikipedia terms to belittle someone's attempt to get opinion on matters he or she clearly feels strongly about. Your constant exaggerations have (to me) been very 'borderline' trolling throughout the whole of CDA. As I've said to you before, you are constantly angry and OTT, and you've not once behaved like an administrator is supposed to do in my eyes. You've intention seems always to upset people in some way. Is CDA really that bad? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The canvassing issue: There's as much possibilty of shananigans occuring on either side (the supporters & opposers of an administrator), thus cancelling each other out. I suppose, similiar shananigans occur at nominations for administratorships. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with relying on an assumption of equal degrees of misbehaviour on both 'sides' to balance the process. Meanwhile, RfA candidates haven't (in the vast majority of cases) ever had or used admin tools. They haven't generated a ready-made pool of editors who have reason (fairly or not) to be upset with them. Non-admins just don't tend to be discussed (and outed, and smeared) off-wiki the same way that admins do. In general, they have low 'name recognition' outside the areas where they do most of their editing; successful candidates generally aren't 'household names' on WP:AN and its subpages. The stakes are bigger in CDA; while adminship is 'no big deal', deadminship certainly is.
The consequences of a failed RfA are less steep as well. If a case is borderline, the 'crats can (effectively) defer their decision — declare a 'no consensus' close, and expect that a good candidate will come back after a month or two of clean editing for his rubber-stamp RfA. I don't think that the community would accept the same sort of outcome (deferral and retrial) to CDA. In all but a few cases, there just isn't the same level of animosity and drama in RfA that this process will virtually always involve. CDA carries a stigma that RfA does not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So why don't you discourage Jusdafax from running the dreadful 'Reverse RfA' form of CDA tomorrow? He is using some of your arguments as support. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true, recalls tend to be more nasty, then elections. Where can we place 'nomination notices', so as to avoid canvassing for 9 editors? GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Remembering back to when we were discussing this with Avi, I tend to think the answer to GoodDay's question is that we need to let both the nominators and the administrator defending him/herself to canvass, but they should do so on wiki and with notification at the CDA page. It's true that off-site canvassing, as at WR the way TenOfAllTrades describes, is a difficult issue, no denying that. (On my bad days, I wonder if the CDA opposers canvass in that way: there sure were a lot of people who showed up fast in the first few hours of the motion to close, even though it eventually went down two-to-one.) I'm going to try to fix the language in the proposal, and I would appreciate help in lieu of further back-and-forth here. But let me point out something else. Something good about CDA is that a single editor cannot effect a nomination without nine others to help, and even the Alice, Dave, et al. of Ten's example won't be able to pull it off unless they can get something over ?% or a clear consensus of at least 50 editors to support removal, and, just as the process will be a so-called big deal, there will be a lot of editors who will show up and defend the administrator against a bad nomination. If Bob of Ten's hypothetical were actually a good administrator just doing his job, I suspect that Alice et al. would soon find themselves getting some very unwelcome community scrutiny, and Bob would retain the sysop flag. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Informing editors of a nomination, isn't canvassing, if you do it in a neutral way. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is repeating past discussion (big surprise!). The issue is, sometimes it may be appropriate to do so in a not-completely-neutral way. If I contact you in hopes that you will join me in being a nominator, there's an implied non-neutrality, even if I just ask you to look at the page, because there could only be one thing I would be asking you to do at that stage. Even more significantly is the point Avi made earlier: the nominated administrator should be able to contact editors who can provide exonerating evidence. Instead of reworking past discussions, let's fix the wording of the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Holy smokers, I can't think of any way to work this out. The topic is too complexed for me. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
But I can! (Sound of applause?) I'm still taking a little time, given all the RfC/U threats rolling around, but I intend to fix the wording. When I do, I hope you'll take a look at it, and let us know what your opinion of it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: About taking a little time: I am, of course, between a rock (Matt) and a hard place (Jusdafax). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position throughout: I only want to take the time a consensus-based CDA clearly needs - no more, no less. A non-consensus based CDA can of course be proposed any old time, though there is little wisdom in doing that. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
My proposal for the Canvassing section is (and has been) here (on the CDA talk page). We have to do something, as WP:CANVASS is not specific enough for CDA, and all the feared mayhem with CDA could arise in the pre-signature stages, basically via canvassing. It could prejudice all forms of pre-CDA resolution (the most important aspect of CDA in my opinion). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how about this?[edit]

Hey boys and girls, how about this? We could use Jusdafax's observation that we don't need to spend a huge amount more time working on tweaking this thing (albeit maybe Friday is a little over the top). We could use Kim's observation that it's a mistake to make this discussion so Rube Goldberg-esque. And we could use Matt's and hamiltonstone's observation that there are still a few things we could fix up in the draft, that would make it better (and better than Uncle G's original version, no disrespect to Uncle G). Putting that all together, why don't we fix up the remaining issues in the draft, without spending too much time arguing and polling it to death, and then take it forward for an RfC? What a nifty idea! Why didn't I think of that before? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Been there, done that. Ship Sailed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I have been saying that Kim is not being helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Eh? Just because I happen to disagree with you on this point? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No, because you aren't being helpful. Caught you red-handed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Behave, okay? :-) Setting deadlines is often very helpful. Folks do it every day in all kinds of contexts. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do my best to get the poll query results in tonight, and work on them specifically with Tryptofish and Sswonk, who they are for - and anyone else who wants to join in of course. When the percentages are settled I want to look at Canvassing as I'm really worried we are overlooking problems there, esp in the pre-signature phase of CDA, which I think we need to define. Apart from those, I don't have any major issues myself to stop the proposal going forward. Others may of course - I only speak for myself. I'm at a concert on Friday night (and I don't get out often.. violins) and I'll only say that if we don't get this done by then (no rush..) and I find Jusdafax has run a pre-revisions CDA at RfC, I'll be just a, er, little bit peeved? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent! Thank you Matt! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Jobs tend to expand to fit the time you set for them. Normally wikipidia runs on "no slower than necessary", but in this case things *are* rather dragging on, and I think the real issues wont start coming in until after the RFC anyway.
So I support Jusdafax's setting of a deadline. I am willing to negotitate to move it back a week or so, if that will smooth some ruffled feathers? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
19th? yas could've waited until 'at least' after the Vancouver Games. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, shall we poke Jusdafax and move it back a week? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Oh, good, I agree with that too. My previous comment about unhelpfulness is now stricken. Thank you for that. This is getting good! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I was too distracted last night to get the results (such as they are) to you last night - it happens occasionally that I can log in but not really concentrate. I'll have periods today and I promise I'll get them to you today at some point, either here or on your talk first (I havent decided yet). There are gaps of course, but I said people could leave it if they didn't have issues I detailed. Matt Lewis (talk)

Any of you may feel free to submit this version of Cda for a RfC anytime you wish and in whatever form you wish, of course. As you can see in my exchange with Ben MacDui, above, I will submit the original Uncle G version, as stated, no later than February 19. Jusdafax 10:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the courage not to blame it's failure on me? Matt Lewis (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
@Jusdafax : you can add me to the list of supporters if you'd be willing to submit your RFC on February 26 instead of February 19. Matt Lewis and Tryptofish think they can put forward a superior proposal before that date, and I admit that I'm curious to see what it will look like.
Instead of all or nothing, I think we can come to consensus this way. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I rather ya didn't Jusdafax. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that what Kim just said makes eminently good sense. I'd like to, oh, I don't know, beg or grovel or something like that, to Jusdafax and MacDui not to act on Friday, but rather to allow a few more days, but I say that realizing that I cannot force you to agree with me. To Matt, I want to say thank-you for making an effort to wrap up your examination of information as rapidly as you reasonably can, and I would add that I fully understand, even if Jusdafax and MacDui do not, that it is not really the Wikipedia way of doing things to present someone with such an abrupt deadline, and I'm very sympathetic with the fact that we all have real-life limitations on the amounts of time we can give Wikipedia, especially on short notice, and so I think you are doing the best you can. Given the facts, I think it prudent that Matt, GoodDay, I, and anyone else who actually would like to see the revised version of CDA be a success make every attempt we can to get it done promptly, before what Jusdafax is planning spins out of control and makes life so much more difficult for the rest of us. I do not see a good way to do that within 24 hours, regrettably, but I can easily see it happening within a couple of days. It will be more difficult if only Matt and I are working on it, however. So to Jusdafax and MacDui, and whoever else plans to bring the antiquated first draft to the community, I would hope to see (insert the now-customary threat of RfC/U here) cooperation with me and Matt in clearing up any issues where Matt and I have difficulty coming to agreement, even while you undertake your own RfC. The truth is, that there are just a few simple, easy things that need to get fixed in the revised draft before it would be what I consider ready to take to the community, but I think it will take a few more pairs of eyes than Matt's and mine to figure out the right way to resolve them. If by any chance Jusdafax and MacDui might agree to my groveling request, I bet we could wrap things up in a way that all of us would be happy with, and I bet Matt will work hard to cooperate with us. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to grovel, Trypto. I had washed my hands of Cda to the extent that I missed Ben MacDui's Feb. 7th RfC notification to me and the (to my way of seeing it) subsequent astonishingly shameful outcome of his two reverted attempts. You asked me on my talk page to come back. Knowing you just a bit, I find it hard to consider that you meant "Come back and agree with everything I say and do."
Indeed, I have given this matter much careful thought. It is very important to again note that Ten of All Trades brings up some vital points above regarding what Cda has become, and I honestly believe the original Uncle G draft, while by no means perfect, to be a superior draft to the current version - which has developed, as Ten notes, a clear bias. I have every right to open Uncle G's draft for comment as a WP:RfC, and I in turn humbly request your support, approval, and assistance. If I cannot gain it, I wish you and all others who support further work on the current draft well, but I find it flawed beyond repair and believe it does much more harm than good to the concept of Community de-adminship. Repeat: I find it flawed beyond repair. Again, my intent: reboot the process, and in about 24 hours. Jusdafax 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is the "clear bias" in the developed CDA? I wan't to know this. I thought it was just the FAQ that Tenofall called "biased" (we can adjust this issue in the FAQ, probably last thing). Tenofall will not be supporting the early-Jan stage proposal (he said so at the time), Judafax - you ought to know that. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since nobody owns the CDA proposals, nobody can stop ya. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, what GoodDay said. At least I tried. :-( --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The reversion of Ben MacDui's attempts at opening the current draft to a RfC (Feb. 7th) clearly illustrates the point that some feel otherwise, GoodDay. Jusdafax 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
But two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry, but this sounds to me like thinly-veiled payback. Anyway, I'm going to try to get a real proposal ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm back online. I'll work as fast as I can now, but I'm not going to panic for anyone. If we don't make it, I'll prepare my strong and informative Oppose comment just in case, for someone to put up immediately - as I'll be out tomorrow night. I've fought these kind of things before - as long as people can stick together around a CDA that we believe in, we'll get through to the real thing. My own issue is just keeping my temper till the fat lady sings, so maybe it's not such a bad thing I'll be out tomorrow if we don't get ours up, and Jusdafax decides to do this. I can handle being blamed when it all goes wrong too! If JF had only paid attention to the last month, he's know what criticism could (and now surely would) arise. Unfortunately he's taking Tenofall's exaggerated version of the supposed small amount of Jan-stage change, which in reality are quite substantial. Tenofall always said he's oppose the 'reverse RfA' version of early Jan, so to be quoting him seems folly to me.
And what about the Watchlist notice too? I keep meaning to enquire about that. I've put a notice on their suggestions page, but I've not properly looked into how it works. Surely they would only accept a 100% Strong-Consensus proposal - another reason why we should simply carry on working till we've got one. The Finalisation poll (though a bit wobbly), and some extra hard work plugging the holes, was all we needed, and still is all we need. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Alas, the clock is ticking. Please continue to control your temper and get your analyses done, and we can head-off Jusdafax at the pass. That's more important now than answering every comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll is open[edit]

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC is open. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More comments[edit]

As this page has not been attended for a while, this is just a note to say that I withdrew my support for the proposal (and CDA as a workable idea) before the eventual RfC. So much of the above discussion amounted to nothing, and 80% remained the threshold percentage. Eventually I decided CDA as an idea is an ineffective bandage on a structural complaint. Canvassing cannot deal with corrupt admin participation (and the chaos that would generate before, during and after a CDA), and the "job for life" has to be dealt with directly at source: we need 'fixed admin terms' at RfA, and some form of Admin Review too. Maybe after we have a fair foundation, a form of Admin Recall (beyond the RfC/u/arb we already have), will then be worth looking at. Perhaps AR won't actually be needed if we have a fair system from the ground up. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So much for a section with a neutral notification.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My comment does have context. As I replied on my talk, I nearly made this point here when the RfC suddenly started, but chose the far-less attended proposal Talk instead. When I supported CDA, I had a lot encouragement from people who were one-time contributors to the CDA draft page (where most of the discussion/polling has been overall). I think they needed to know the results of the discussion on the threshold percentages, and also my general position too to be fair. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)