Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Remaining questions part 2

This is what appears to be currently "unresolved".

Inactive administrators

Complex discussion needing to be summarised. I haven't gone through all the details, but the question seems to revolve around whether or not a 'crat can close if someone attempts to nominate an inactive admin. I think they can, and I don't see any strong support for changing this. Ben MacDui 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to fix tldr, but there were two versions of the wording that, despite all the bile spent on them, say essentially the same thing; there was then an off-topic foray into having multiple Bureaucrats review the certification, which thankfully seems to have gained no traction. You chose the newer of the two wordings when you deleted the other, and I'm happy to consider that over with. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this section to the previous wording. It's not clear why you consider the issue closed; simply sticking a template at the end of a discussion doesn't end the dispute. Why even start discussions over these issues if you don't intend to actually bring them to resolution? Ben, I'm unclear on your reason for supporting the changed version over the original if you do not believe there is support for changing this. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It seemed to me to be more clear, but I don't mind either way. I have much more interest in there being a stable version for the community to discuss than in continuing to worry about which of umpteen ways to say the same thing is the best. Please note discussion at Start/Re-start. Ben MacDui 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not everyone agrees they mean the same thing, or it would never have been changed in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Re changing this: "This process cannot be used to remove an Administrator's sysop rights solely because of non-activity." to this, "Any administrator account nominated here must be an account that has used editor or administrator tools recently.". Can either of you tell me what "recently" means? I find it completely ambiguous. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to change it to "in the last 2 months" or any timeframe you prefer... Christopher Parham (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
We should be clear that these are beginning to mean two different things, ie the original is meant to mean quite plainly that Cda isn't an avenue to remove the sysop bit simply because the admin is inactive. The second purpose developing is trying to limit liability of admin actions only to admins 'recently' active. The issue with 2 months or any random choice is that if the admin acts completely foolish and untrustworthy and the community starts the requisite substantial dispute resolution (which ultimately fails), but assuming the admin stopped using the tools, and that the discussions lasted 2 months, then a Cda as an option would now be excluded. I support the intial intention of not using the Cda to remove the bit from inactive admins solely due to inactivity, but do not support expansion. NJA (t/c) 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone may participate

Apparently, there is still a question about the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) This is presumably "((placing of last sentence needs to be discussed))". I will strike this unless an alternative is suggested.

I removed it. Ben MacDui 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There was never an explanation, and there is no apparent problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How to word percentages or whatever

It said "needs to be discussed" - but it is not as if it hasn't been. I am fine with adding "approx" if that is a preference, although I don't think it is necessary myself. I don't see any other proposal getting support. Ben MacDui 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tough call. I think it's a pity that there hasn't been more traction for Sswonk's suggestion, but I agree that, on the evidence, editors are not coalescing around it. I have added the "approximately" in, at least. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Before nomination

It said "needs to be discussed" - but what?

Well, it was explained very clearly in this talk. I've reverted it to the consensus wording, and I consider it done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for reference: this was my initial change to Trypto's consensus wording, and this is where we're at now. Notice we're more than half way back to his preferred wording, which I'm fine with. While some of my changes are gone, I believe the core concerns are resolved and the intent of the paragraph remains intact. This is essentially Trypto's concern, as I'm fine with the current version, despite the fact that the changes have been substantially rolled back towards his preferred wording in an attempt at balance and compromise. For complete coverage of this discussion, see here, along with my attempt at even more compromise as suggested in this post. NJA (t/c) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me first extend a friendly compliment to NJA for being, so far as I can tell, the only editor who has actually tried to resolve remaining issues in the 24 hours or so after the RfC was aborted, and to apologize to NJA for times when I was angry over how I felt things were going (and indeed it is not NJA who is holding anything up). It is for these reasons that I have decided to step back from this discussion for a while, and get out of the way of other editors for a while. I do, however, want to point out a recent happening that illustrates vividly why I feel strongly about this particular issue. This is a perfect illustration of what happens when an editor, acting in anger and in haste, tries to start a proceedings against an administrator who has really done nothing to deserve it, and where the process ends up reflecting badly on the editor who started it. The paragraph we are discussing here has a purpose: to catch the attention of such editors, and to dissuade them from acting in an ill-advised manner. That is its purpose. Those editors will not be reading for nuance. They need to be, in effect, grabbed by the collar. When the language was discussed, at length, previously, that was the clear consensus of the community. As comments during the recent "Vote 4" indicate, the issue remains a significant concern among editors who oppose the proposal, and will be a significant reason for editors to, potentially, vote against it. There has been no feedback from the community that the language needs to be "nice". The language needs to be vivid. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I will not comment on the RfC and the like as this isn't the place. Should the wording at RfC need strengthened then that's a different discussion completely. Anyhow, I hoped it was obvious that I am in complete agreement that the intent of the paragraph is excellent. The intent is directly linked to the reasoning of the consensus that keeps being mentioned, and that's not up for discussion, just the wording that produces that intent. So yes, we agree that it must be clear / "vivid", not weak, but I believe also professional and understandable by anyone reading English.
This could really be resolved quickly. Is the first sentence okay with you? Is it okay to be clear that we're speaking of the purpose of this process? If not, just change process back to nomination as I'm not going to drag this out over one word. Second sentence, I hoped for a suitable variation of something like 'the nomination will likely fail, and possibly backfire as your conduct will also be called into question during the intense scrutiny of all those involved'. It's vivid, sums it all up quite nicely, and should be clear to anyone. I still enjoyed linking to WP:ADMINABUSE after it says 'then you are in the wrong place', but I'm not too bothered. Essentially, if we're saying they're in the wrong place, a link to the likely right (or at least better) place would be helpful. NJA (t/c) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: It seems we're doing the two choice option now rather than a compromise option, thus I've put my final re-word in and we'll seek comments on what's preferred. Per usual, I'm open to adjustments to my version. NJA (t/c) 16:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:There is no deadline. I've said enough, and I'd like to see what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We have two choices. That doesn't limit us to those two choices, nor preclude adjustments. (By the way, the choice I advocate has already been modified to incorporate some, but obviously not all, of NJA's wording.) 'Nuff said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, regarding the last 24 hours, the time I did spend on Wikipedia yesterday was time I should have spent with people in my life who really matter to me. I thought I'd have some time on Sun night, but in the end I didn't. I know it's a bummer when people are waiting on you, but it is just life. The more we frame things in terms of pushing this out, the more unfair it is on people. There is real wisdom in WP:there is no deadline - Wikipedia cannot work any other way. I reject the very concept of framing this particular proposal in terms of being 'overdue'. There is no stonewalling I can see, only discussion and consensus building. Maintaining a steady pace is always a good thing, but nobody has to act in undue haste just because others damand it.
The link you provide above was one you will have read me saying to MacDui that I don't wish to make a big deal about (but at the time I felt the need to do), and one I've offered to withdraw as well, if he promises just to accept that the proposal is simply done when it is done. The only person who has advertised it (twice now) is you.
I'm going to try and do a bit of archiving on this page (not sure if it is possible though), so I can more easily bring my suggestions from NJA's sandbox to here. If you don't like the any of the archiving, obviously, bring them back. I'll partly go by your "tick-Done's" if are really clear-cut, though archiving shouldn't endorse them as such. (I'm not a big fan of those by the way - I saw someone use one after a passer-by suggested a content edit to a contentious article, and I was quite angry over it. They really shouldn't be allowed for anything that can be reasonably disputed imo, more just technical matters.) Matt Lewis (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If you take a liberal definition, virtually anything in the Guide can be "reasonably disputed". The ticks are a useful indicator that there is no alternative currently under discussion. If credible options emerge later, fair enough. Your "offer to withdraw" is an absurdity - it is up to everyone involved to make decisions based on what they think is appropriate at the time rather than some kind of plea bargaining process. If you have constructive suggestions, bring them forward for debate. Ben MacDui 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was what I felt was appropriate at the time - I wasn't using it to bargain with you. I'm happy enough for rfc/u to stay if that's what you want, and I don't think it reflects badly on me at all (despite some clear attempts to make it appear so). But if you are happy not to push the button until completion (by which I mean consensus over the essential matters like the threshold percentage, canvassing, the FAQ, and technicalities regarding how the poll is run), then for me it the rfcu is a redundant matter.
Re my issues over canvassing - you will have more from me soon. I've have much concentration time at the moment, and the rush (and esp this juncture to suddenly 'go live') was not of my own making. In short - I've found this weekend/today very stressful (which I could have done without frankly), and I think it was absolutely needless. One outstanding thing is for me to query the 'none' voters so we can jump that 'ambiguity' hurdle. I can't see any realistic ambiguity at all (it is only theoretical to me), and that is a huge difference of opinion by anyone's standards. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, it might be nice if we decide what to say in the paragraph that NJA and I have been discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvass

It says "needs to be discussed" - but what? As I have said before I think this is something that could go into an FAQ. There seems to be no current alt. suggestion. Ben MacDui 14:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, I agree. Enough is enough, and the wording is fine. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
While I believe the text is fine as is, a simple look through the history would discover the suggested alternative text. There has been some, but not detailed discussion on it here. NJA (t/c) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion just above too (Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship#Canvassing. An improved version of it is in NJA's sandbox - though I'll be moving it into here later tonight. What is not "enough" is the current Canvassing section. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll page

I have now found the comments about this, but I still don't know what the differences are - is it just a question of having "support/oppose" sections? Ben MacDui 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and this is important! First, please go to #Poll page format not done and note it. I'm sorry that you and I have had mixed signals on this matter, but please be flexible and understand that reality has changed. Now go to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and scroll down to "Concerns about poll format" within "The final stages (summary of poll results)". (For reasons I don't understand, the page got so complex that one cannot link directly to the section, so just find the section from the TOC.) Read the first several comments between me and TenOfAllTrades; you can stop reading as other editors come in and the talk veers way off-topic. At that point, scroll down some more, to "suggested RfC polling page" and read that seriously. Please understand how strongly some editors opposed to the proposal feel about having discussion in a certain way, and how they will object if we ignore their often valid concerns. This is very important. We need to get on "the same page" (literally) about this. The draft I made, Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft Poll Page, can be moved (renamed) out of talk, but a format along those lines is what is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
So far as I can see there is very little difference between the two versions. If the latter has received some positive discussion, can I suggest that the simplest way to proceed is to copy the contents of the draft poll page back into the RfC page and then turn the former into a redirect? That way at least the navboxes etc. don't need to be changed. Ben MacDui 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done Done, exactly as you said. Please check it, and please make sure other editors have not altered it to push the views of the opposers. I think, with that, we are ready to go live. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You know the content and percentage issues people have. I will revert the rfc if you put it up now. Uncle G is not God and MacDui is not Moses. Matt Lewis (talk)

Canvassing and discussion rules

The signature-collecting phase

asd During the collection of the 10 signatures, no canvassing is allowed. Signatures can only be requested directly via the user's Talk page, and must include a valid reason why the person being contacted might agree to the CDA. A valid reason might be a previous complaint or disagreement made by the person being contacted about the administrator under question. Note that only citing a complaint or disagreement by the admin towards the person being contacted is unacceptable.

During this phase, any nomination-related discussion between;

  1. those who have already signed, and
  2. those involved in current discussion related to the 'before nomination' phase,

can only be made on their talk pages.

No other nomination-related discussion is allowed, except to the nominee and to administrators when asking technical advice.

Signatures that are the result of direct canvassing will be struck out, unless the person signing is involved in current discussion related to the 'before nomination' phase. Canvassing abuse will be dealt with according to Wikipedia's canvassing rules.

The discussion and polling phase

After the 10 signatures have been accepted and the CDA process begins in earnest, all parties must fully adhere to Wikipedia's canvassing rules. However, parties to the CDA process may also contact other editors individually, to request specific input. Those names must be entered into the Contacted parties list on the CDA page, followed by a signature.

Comments on clarifying the Canvassing secion

The example section above is a slightly updated version of a change I attempted a few days ago.

My biggest concern with the currently short "Canvassing" section as it stands:

"Canvassing
All communication pertaining to a CDA must be in accordance with WP:CANVASS. Parties to the CDA process may, however, legitimately contact other editors individually to request specific input, making note of that contact on the CDA page."

is that it essentially devolves all responsibility to WP:CANVAS, which is a rather ambiguous 'guideline'. How many times are people brought to task over it? I think the biggest problem arising from this CDA process as it stands will happen when someone gets the idea to start a CDA on someone, and the "canvass laws" come into play. I think the 'drama' that many people fear will arrive at this crucial point. For me, a CDA will start (in essence) when someone first proposes one. Consequently, we need to deliniate this as a 'phase' (basically the 'signature collecting phase').

Regarding the existing wording, what does "Parties to the CDA process may, however, legitimately contact other editors individually to request specific input, making note of that contact on the CDA page." mean? I assume it is a prepared list on the main CDA page. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that contacting a user on the user's talk page to request a signature is canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
But how can it be canvassing and part of an actual process too? CDA requires 10 signatures to actually start. I don't think WP:CANVASSING is strong enough to cover CDA properly. I'm not saying I have the perfect wording here (saying "no canvassing" might just confuse the canvassing guideline), but I think that just pointing to WP:CANVAS is inviting trouble. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
How about;

Concurrent duplicate CDA's

This needs a short section, as I don't think we've covered it. Some kind of clerk needs to sort out any concurrent CDA's that have being filed, which could be a real possibility if an unrepentant admin clearly plummets into the 'CDA zone' for a significant number of editors.

Language like "First of all you must check that a CDA has not already been filed." could be used. Where would they check though? Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The main CDA page could have a list of open requests and a link to archived successful/unsuccessful requests. A bullet point like "Ensure the admin does not already have an open request and six months has passed since the admin's last request." can be added to list in the Before nomination section. — Bility (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing and discussion rules

(needs discussion:)

The issue of canvassing at CDA is a highly problematic one. Too much discussion in the early phase of CDA could easily lead to 'drama' that escalates out of control. This disruption could prejudice the chances of a pre-CDA resolution, where any issues regarding the administrator are settled without the need of de-adminship. It should also be as difficult as possible to put a worthy administrator up for CDA, and widespread drama would increase the likelihood of 10 ill-informed signatures. Thus there are very specific rules that need to be adhered to regading contacting others about the CDA.

The signature-collecting phase

This 7-day phase, where all the 10 nominations for a CDA must be signed within, starts the moment the nomination form is signed by someone.

Requesting support

Only after signing the nominination form is an editor permitted to request another editor's signature. Requesting support before signing the nomination form is not permitted. If an editor is seen contravening this, he must be referred to this CDA guide, and told immediately to either sign the form or stop.

Requesting support can only be done directly via a message placed on a User Talk page, and nowhere else.

This message;

  • must include a valid reason why the person contacted might agree to the CDA. A valid reason might be a previous complaint or disagreement made by the person being contacted about the administrator for whom a CDA is proposed. Note that it is not acceptable to only cite a complaint or disagreement by the administrator towards the person being contacted.
  • must ask the contacted user to read this CDA guideline page, and ideally provide a direct link.

No canvassing abuse

It is not permitted to talk widely about the nomination during the signature collecting phase.

The following rules apply:

  • All discussion on the nomination amongst (and between) those who have signed the nomination form, and editors involved in discussion on the nominated administrator (specifically regarding matters detailed in the Before nomination phase), must be restricted to their user talk pages.
  • The only other nomination-related discussion allowed are to the nominee, and to administrators when asking technical advice.

Signatures that are the result of direct canvassing will be struck out, unless the person signing is involved in current discussion related to the 'before nomination' phase. Canvassing abuse will be dealt with seriously, and according to Wikipedia's canvassing rules.

The discussion and polling phase

After the 10 signatures have been accepted and the CDA process begins in earnest, all parties must fully adhere to Wikipedia's canvassing rules. However, parties to the CDA process may also contact other editors individually, to request specific input. Those names must be entered into the Contacted parties list on the CDA page, followed by a signature.

--

Comments on above:

I've added for people to sign the form before contacting anyone else. Does this make sense? In the kind of CDA cases we specifically need safeguards for, there could often be a very angry individual involved. If he is forced to place his signature down first, monitoring the 'canvassing' will be easier from the outset, and also discourage speculation in cases that are not as clear cut as they should be. It could sober some people up if they had to put their name down first. More-easily following the signature-collecting phase could discourage signature abuse - eg a if list of signatures appear without evidence of contact, or of having witnessed the contact of others, it could show either offline canvassing or sockpuppetry (this is not foolproof of course, and the only really sure way is to have some kind of special email). Better canvassing rules could discourage such abuse. An additional line I've added is "Users must sign the form before contacting any other person". Matt Lewis (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another significant point is that a natural pre-CDA resolution will be harder to achive when there is the drama of excessive canvassing going on. Canvassing has always been something easy to game - we must assure that the rules surrounding it are as stringent as possible with CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:KISS, is it enough to just outline the parts that are not covered by WP:CANVASS and leave the rest to the normal rules? I think it would suffice to say that canvassing is only allowed to collect signatures during the nomination phase and is limited to user talk page notices. A template could be created for this purpose, with a link to the guide and the applicable nomination page. I also think including a valid reason when canvassing is unnecessary and will be used to introduce bias that could easily be avoided. Thoughts? — Bility (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In this instance, I'm a big fan of WP:KISS too. I think the bottom-line issue is that people (including the nominated administrator, needing to contact editors with exonerating evidence) will need to contact others in ways that, strictly, violate CANVASS, but which are appropriate and necessary here. In an earlier version, I tried but failed to say that clearly. I think the exception to CANVASS is that it should be permissible to contact (a limited number?) of editors in a non-neutral way to bring them to the CDA page for specific reasons. The needed safeguards are that the contact needs to be (1) on-Wiki, and (2) recorded transparently (preferably as a diff) on the CDA page (so failing either of these two things would be a violation). I see no reason to make distinctions between different phases of the CDA process. I was going to try to craft a simple few sentences conveying that, but please feel free to do it before me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to say that WP:CANVASS already covers all this and this is an unnecessary section. Any appearance of trying to "get around" a widely accepted policy (which is how some will see this), may have a detrimental affect on the proposal's chances at RfC. That being said, I see two issues with the canvassing section. First, I don't anticipate ever having to worry about a CDA nomination not garnering enough awareness. With all the places such a nomination is required to be posted, the pages where the nominator had his earlier dispute resolution attempts and all the inherent drama associated with the process, I don't see a need for special considerations to circumvent the canvassing policy. Second, the rules will only become more complicated as they get increasingly specific about the ways in which canvassing is allowed. This may serve as an impediment to nominators (who may not be wiki-savvy), as it increases the chances that their nomination will be speedily closed on technicalities.
Now, it's a little late in the day to start debating the first point, and the canvassing section can be amended after a couple CDA nominations, as necessary. For the second point, maybe we can use some tools to help us, such as a talk page message template for canvassing, and a preload template for setting up the nomination page itself correctly. The message template would allow us to standardize how canvassing messages are conveyed, and the preload template would allow for perhaps a collapsible box where the list of contacted parties could go. I would rather the canvassers not have to provide diffs, as it's another venue for speedily closing on a technicality, and if a standard template is used, the diffs may be unimportant. So for wording, how about:
Some things I'm not sure of: can the administrator start canvassing as soon as he's nominated, or must he wait until the nomination has been certified, and are subsequent nominators also allowed to canvass in addition to the original one? — Bility (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
For my time zone, it's real late, and I'm running on fumes right now. What I would point out is that, in previous talk, other editors, notably Avi, a bureaucrat, expressed the opinion that the nominated administrator does need to contact people in a way that CANVASS does not permit, so I can see the absence of something about this as actually being a bigger reason for people to oppose. But, that said, I think your template idea is a very good one, and one that would cover all bases. The bullet list is fine, as opposed to diffs. As for your two questions, I would just delete the words "After the nomination has been certified". Let the administrator do it whenever they want to. It doesn't matter, and is arguably creep. And change the originating nominator to nominator"s", for similar reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up my Canvassing section proposal above (it was hard to follow I admit). I going to suggest creating an example 'signature request' message people could follow - a template would be even better. To make it so 'open' could cause mayhem in certain circumstances though, and easily prejudice the chances of a pre-CDA resolution. I really believe that we need to a formulate a Signature collecting phase, and specify the limits people can go to. We then need a seperate method for the discussion and polling phase, which would have freer canvassing. It's the early stages that could go out of control: which is why we need to properly decide when a CDA actually starts. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote above has been modified per Tryptofish's changes. To Matt: I think the simplified version quoted above encompasses everything your longer section does if you can drop the part about including a reason for the message. The reason should always be the same: the nominator believes the admin has exhibited a pattern of abusive conduct. The template would accept one parameter, the title of the CDA nomination page, and would output a neutral message including links to the CDA Guide and the CDA nomination page. Is that okay? Does it still need more? I don't think a separate section for the polling phase in necessary, as WP:CANVASS can then take effect. — Bility (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think WP:CANVASS is too weak to stop people causing mayhem. I've never seen it ruled upon either. Who hasn't stretched things a little when they know that it matters? Discuss it here, mention it there etc. And I'm a card carrying Wikipedian - I restrict myself very well. I think we absolutely need to restrict who people contact, and when they contact, specifically within the signature collecting phase. CDA is that important. After certification (providing we have those earlier restrictions) things can be different, as the admin is closer to CDA (ie he is within the process full). Without good canvassing restrictions we are far more likely to get 10 signatures too easily, and totally do the head in of a decent admin. And prejudice his chances of a pre-CDA resolution too, with all the drama of the 7-day phase. And what if it all goes on before someone puts a signature down too? How can that be 7 days?
The potential for disruption with CDA is so high, that it's only when thinking of canvassing that I genuinely start to question whether CDA really is the right approach. There will be masses of Oppose votes based on the possible drama factor alone. I can't really blame those people cynical of CDA given some of the editors out there, and the potential to sock on Wikipedia to get your way. I have a good argument above on how tight canvassing rules will help people weed out the socks: it will be much clearer when people 'spring up' out of nowhere, and thus easier to check how and why that is, and the likelihood of any sockpuppetry going on. The more I think about tight canvassing, the more essential it appears to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you work a useful template into something like this (Canvassing section proposal)? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the "signature collection phase" is the same as the "seven day nomination phase", can we just use the second phrase for consistency? It took me a while to realize that they were one in the same. I've made {{CDA-nom}} and {{CDA-admin}} as generic talk page messages for the nominators and admin, respectively, and I've modified the quote above to incorporate more of your longer canvassing section above. You didn't comment on adding a reason to the user page message, so I took that to mean you also found it to be unnecessary. If that's not the case, a parameter can be added into the template to accommodate it. My quoted version above is much shorter, and perhaps easier to understand with some of the redundancies taken out (overlap with normal CANVASS policy, multiple sentences to convey one idea). How does it look now? — Bility (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please listen to me! Sorry Bility, I couldn't be more serious here. Having valid reasons for gathering support is central to this 'Signature collecting phase' not breaking down. I tried as much as I could to say that above. I don't waste words (though I might seem to write a lot), so please read my proposal and what I say about it carefully.
We cannot let people just 'dish out' these templates to possibly masses of people with links to the admin under question. Please read WP:CANVASSING carefully - it is just not strong enough to properly restrict this templates use, let alone damaging discussion spreading all over the place on a possibly innocent admin. The ensuing drama would prejudice the natural pre-CDA dispute resolution (an essential aspect to CDA), and it makes it too easy to get 10 nominators for a decent admin. Also, we need to stop people from discussing the CDA everywhere on Wikipedia during this phase, or before even one signature has been signed! (another reason to make this a clear phase, making people sign the nomination form before discussing the nomination).
I've called it the "Signature collecting phase" because that is specifically what this is about: it is the very collection process, not the physical nominating one. It may lead to no nominators at all, so 'Nominations phase' is inaccurate for sub-section and essential phase.
I just cannot support a CDA without its own in-built canvassing rules for this crucial signature collecting phase. All the mayhem would occur even before the nomination form is signed, as things stand.
CDA must take responsibility on canvassing, and fundamentally understand the huge damage canvassing abuse could do to Wikipedia. A serious amount of people (including many influential admin/arbs) will simply not support such an easily-started CDA. And I can't blame them. The CDA we have now could be a disaster without anyone even signing the form! Matt Lewis (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Bility, I see Matt's point here. The current wording allows a massive, spammy use of the template. I think the problem can be solved by adding a short sentence indicating that the templates are to be used only for a limited number of specific recipients. I'll also point out, on the plus side, that the requirement of the bullet list of contactees provides a safeguard: if either the list is ridiculously long, or there are unlisted recipients who will of course be visible on site, then that will come out and be seen by the community. (Why has it been changed to only have the admin make the list? That's wrong.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So, whomever can invite more friends (via {{CDA-nom}} or {{CDA-admin}}, plus whatever back channels and watchlists come into play) wins — that's not a good process.
Similarly, this proposal doesn't acknowledge the likelihood of significant discussion among editors prior to the formal start of the CDA process. Nominators are required to present evidence (or some facsimile thereof) in support of their nomination. Nominators' signatures indicate their endorsement of the nomination statement and supporting evidence. It stands to reason that there will be (or ought to be) discussion between potential nominators regarding how to frame their CDA request in order to establish a 'consensus' nomination. It doesn't make sense to allow changes to the nomination statement after the nominators begin to sign; it leaves us with ""What the heck...? I didn't sign that CDA request!"-type problems. And allowing individual nominators to add their own 'signing statements' will also look ridiculous: "I endorse this request for desysop, even though the evidence given below is stupid and irrelevant. Instead, refer to my diffs...". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Why would people need to establish a "consensus nomination" between themselves before signing? That sounds exactly what we don't want people to do. We need to prevent people getting together to try and 'game together' a CDA proposal. That whole process would be ugly and disruptive. If a CDA has not become an obvious matter, it simply shouldn't happen surely. In my idea of CDA anyway.
In my proposal for Canvassing, people can communicate (and ask others to support them) only after they've first committed themselves. It makes 100% sense to me, and I cannot think of anything else that will minimise the potential disruption. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I was making the assumption that in order for a CDA to take place, a) there had to be a clearly-enunciated, evidence-supported reason to do so; and b) that the nominators had to be prepared to endorse a specific statement of those reasons and evidence. Am I misreading the proposal? What you seem to be suggesting is that only the first nominator could offer evidence and a statement, and all the others would have to 'take it or leave it', regardless of any errors or omissions it may contain. The first nominator would not be permitted to discuss his statement or the evidence with any other editor prior to posting and signing it. That doesn't make sense to me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
e/c The evidence is certified with the signatures, after the 7 days.
All nominators (inc the first) should be aware of evidence which fits the proposal requirements, or else simply not sign. If the nominators are in any doubt that there is evidence of misbehaviour, they really should not be signing anything! People need to look for themselves if they are personally worried about an admin. Maybe this matter of evidence could be made clearer in the Canvassing section.
After people have signed, they can all communicate over compiling the evidence, on their talk pages only. This is providing more than one wish to do it - chances are the first nominators would do quite a lot themselves (unaware of each other), as they have become fed up with the admin, and have considered CDA either via his behaviour, or via the CDA notice on his or someone else's talk page.
The nominators would edit the evidence together in the normal Wikipedia way, making sure it is done by the deadline. Btw, I'll make a new short section on Duplicate CDA's, as I can't remember us having covered that. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If an editors puts down his signature to endorse a statement – on Wikipedia or elsewhere in life – it is not acceptable for anyone else to rewrite that statement on his behalf. Period. This is basic stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. (half the time I'm sure it's your tone that throws me, you know). What are you referring too? Oh I see (yes it is your tone!) - The 'extended statements' are only endorsed by the signature after the 7 days. Anyone can scrub a signature at that point if they wish, or edit their talk page statement. The proposal did offer time to get a new signature if the occasion arose, but I think that was edited out - I'll have a look for it, and put it back in if need be. I'll also add some more info to the Guide about the Nomination talk page. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at the Guide and at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example. The Guide explicitly states:
Nominations are expected to provide a short, single, and objective statement of the nomination, supported by detailed and specific evidence.
The example nomination includes Evidence in support of the nomination, which is a required section. What exactly are the nomination signatories endorsing, if not the statement and evidence? Finally, in the proposal as written, the nominators can't remove their signatures after the CDA is certified — even if the nomination statement was modified after they signed. (Heck, they aren't even allowed to strike their votes if they are persuaded that their initial nomination was in error.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll answer this later tonight - there will be a vote striking option. It's all there, just not fully written yet. We basically have been working on this, with copy coming last. Haven't you noticed? Matt Lewis (talk)-
Matt's version satisfies my concernrs. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay: have you compared Matt's version to Bility's version? In what ways do you consider Bility's version to be inferior? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
First come, first serve. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If I understand that correctly, then, no, you haven't yet looked at Bility's? If that's the case, please do. In my opinion, it's better. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is it? jeepers, I thought this would be easy. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You thought it would be easy, did you? It's just above, in this talk thread. Look for the block quote, but then also read the comments that come after it (as this is still a work in progress). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
He'll have to send me a brief (at my talkpage). It's too confusing in this place, I can't even find where he's signed his proposal. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I just made some corrections to it. Just scroll a short way up from here, and look for the short paragraph with the large quotation marks around it. If you look for the quote marks, you can't miss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to combined both proposals? GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there is no agreement about canvassing's role in CDA. Maybe we should decide on that before attempting to nail down an exact wording? — Bility (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Tips"

Tip for editors who are not eligible to make nominations: If you cannot convince 10 independent eligible editors of the merits of your request, such that they take it up themselves, then your request is probably without merit and should not be pursued.

I find this ambiguous in a number on ways, and I don't think it's ultimately needed. I know NJA agrees with me, but I'm open to something better written (if it's possible to do it without issues). At the moment though it think it just raises unnecessary questions (definitions of "eligible", "independent", "merit"), and is a bit too preachy (eg, "should not be persued" in what capacity?) General words like "Tips" and "probably" don't really fit what is now quite a tight and professional proposal I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Just take the whole thing out. There's no need for a tip. — Bility (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the perspective of previous discussion, I disagree. It has become abundantly clear from comments by editors who have reservations about the proposal that a major concern, one that will weight heavily on the minds of "swing voters" in the (hopefully soon) RfC, is that frivolous nominations, those made in anger and haste, need to be discouraged. I agree that "rational" editors really don't need tips like this, but the tip and language like it serve a purpose for their intended audience. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the tip in the current version of the Guide, but I'm assuming it goes in the Before nomination section? Anyway, how would an ineligible editor know whether they can convince 10 others unless they try? Since frivolous nominations is what we want to avoid, how about we just say that instead attempting to make an editor admit his case has no merit? I suspect that most nominators, even if they don't get a single supporting signature, will always think their argument had merit. How about something along the lines of: "Frivolous nominations without likelihood of success, simply to drag an admin into the process, are considered abusive and will not be tolerated." — Bility (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, we're going around in circles here. Please let me direct you to a previous but recent version of the draft: [1]. It predates the most recent flurry of edits, and represents what most of us were looking at before many of the active participants gave up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess I'm against the idea of a warning like that even being necessary, but since it is, it looks very reasonable. I'm fine with leaving the tip in. — Bility (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guide revert

Matt: I absolutely did not lie to you. Your reversions are unreasonable. Please do not fly off the handle like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

[2] - this is evidence that you made these edit to broker a deal with Jusdafax. HOW DARE YOU MESS WITH SO MUCH OF OTHER PEOPLES WORK JUST TO APPEASE SOMEONE IN THIS WAY. If Jusdafax does his alternative CDA, so be it. There is no way that you are fast-tracking CDA to how you personally want it with the pretext of appeasing Jusdafax either. You waited until you knew I was out to do it, and effectively lied to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oh good grief. There's a difference between brokering a deal and trying to work things out with people. You seem to think that Jusdafax and the rest of Wikipedia were going to wait silently until you got back from the concert you went to. I'm going to let other editors judge this for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why's everybody so concerned about Jusdafax's plans? If his RfC on the original CDA (which he hasn't started yet) gets accepted by the community, fine. If it doesn't? there's this CDA. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, please do not accept the innuendo of what Matt said as a reason to impugn my motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't get that from GoodDay's post either, for what it's worth. About this revert war on the Guide and allegations of brokering a deal – I don't see any bad faith. It's unrealistic for interested editors who are trying to work on a project to have to wait for everyone to be online at the same time. Further, Tryptofish went to great lengths by reverting back to an earlier version first and slowly adding changes one by one with explanatory edit summaries. There's no underhandness here, and making changes to the Guide rather than reverting it is what will ultimately get us where we need to go. Now that everyone has their three reverts out of the way, maybe we can get back to collaborating. — Bility (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish knew I was going out, asked me to have a good time, then reverted edits I made that had been up for two weeks. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That is reading into what I did, things that were not what I was actually doing. I'm sure you would be claiming something similar if I had made the edits sooner. I hoped that, with time, things could be discussed more reasonably, but it appears I was too optimistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you. Is there any reason that we cannot work in the way Bility described, from the version we had today before the anger broke out? It does no one any good to hold this proposal hostage. By the way, Jusdafax is going ahead now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Good luck to you all, I've had it with the infighting over CDA. PS- consider my support for this CDA withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay, I've seen what Matt said at your talk, and I understand why you are saying this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
No you don't. You behaved the worse I've seen any non-socking Wikipedia editor behave today. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite this ride through the fever swamp, the fact is, that the edit summaries will show that I very carefully put in each of the edits Matt had previously made, and only left out those that had been criticized by other editors, in this talk or in the copyedits discussion at the other talk. The idea that I was unilaterally undoing his work is simply not true, and it's very dismaying to be accosted like this for genuinely trying to do something good here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you do it when you knew I was out? There were removals of my edits that had been there around 2 weeks now (probably over too). You cannot prove that wasn't because others thought they were good enough (either in essence, or as copy). I'll spend time later editing on top of your changes - it just takes more time that's all. I would have minded less if I had more time for it, but the reason I have so little time is quite simply down to all the unnecessary roads you send me down. And on top of that Jusdafax could drop his Alternative CDA any minute - though I'm not concerned with that now. It is a real mistake to edit with that and mind and rush through with various counter-edits. It is just stretching things out, not speeding things up. We have to be methodical. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To state the obvious, we are at an impasse. Matt sincerely believes that I am single-handedly ruining CDA, while I sincerely believe that Matt is single-handedly ruining CDA. Matt sincerely believes that he has been paying attention to and representing the consensus views of editors who have previously contributed, while I sincerely believe that I have been paying attention to and representing the consensus views of editors who have previously contributed. Matt sincerely believes that I am "owning" the page, while I sincerely believe that Matt is "owning" the page. Matt sincerely believes that I am motivated by ego, while I sincerely believe that Matt is motivated by ego. No question, that's an impasse. But not a permanent end, not the death of CDA, not something that cannot lead to a productive outcome. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to get things back on track is for more editors who want to see a successful proposal to become actively engaged. Not just me and Matt, and not editors who are on record as wanting the proposal to fail. Please look seriously at the facts, at the arguments on the merits, and say freely what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to bring together

I'm getting a bit nervous about the impending "doomsday" for the competing RfC. So I'm going to make an attempt to incorporate all the ideas up to this point in this talk and at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC. I'm going to make some edits, some of them bold, none of them etched in stone, to the Guide page. To do it, I'm first going to temporarily put an "in use" notice at the top, to avoid edit conflicts. That's only temporary. I'll then try to make each edit a discrete change with its own explanatory edit summary, so hopefully they can be followed. To make that work, the first few edits will look messy, so please understand that they, too, are only temporary. I'm just trying to help move things along. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the above. Other editors, please take a look at it. In my opinion, it is now good enough to go to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite, it looks great! Some cleanup, perhaps: redundancy between lede and "What this process is" section (possibly merge them?), various inconsistencies (sysop/"sysop"/sysop right, administrator/Administrator, community at large/Community at large, Community de-adminshipship/community de-adminship, etc.), and why all the bolding and italics? As to content, it now reads like all nominators can provide statements with corroborating details and evidence. Is that correct? If so, I think it should allay TenOfAllTrades' concern about that portion of the proposal. Canvassing still appears to be a contentious issue, however, as TenOfAllTrades has brought up more valid points that should be addressed and I'm not sure Matt or GoodDay are okay with your current version. Lastly, I'm fine with 80% or 85% for the number (don't really see a big difference), but from what Matt has intimated so far on his latest findings, I think he will still argue for 85%. — Bility (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If it increases the chances of CDA getting adopted? no probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both. As for the minor formatting things like sysop and community, please go ahead and fix those, and I'll then double-check it. I agree with your assessment of where other editors may still have concerns, and that's fine, I'm happy to wait and see, but I just don't want to wait indefinitely. As for Bility's concerns about what the process is and is not, I can point out that the argument for doing it this way is to encourage editors who are contemplating a nomination to consider carefully before they act. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On second reading, I see it still says "nominations" not "nominators" with regard to a single statement being made. So to be clear, only the first nominator is allowed to form this statement and provide evidence? Larger changes:
  1. Awkward phrasing:
    • "Getting administrator actions undone[line break] The places for doing that are ..." to
    • "Undoing administrator actions[line break] Venues for seeking reversal of administrator actions are, variously, ..."
  2. I read the previously sentence in a way that makes this one the opposite of what I expected:
    • "If this is not the issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place." to
    • "If this is an issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place."
  3. Awkward phrasing, especially "administrator to be nominated":
    • "In addition, nominations by editors during an active arbitration process concerning the administrator to be nominated may be initiated only with the permission of the Arbitration Committee." to
    • "In addition, permission must be granted by the Arbitration Committee for editors to nominate an administrator currently involved in an active arbitration process.
And finally, would it be all right to use 80–85% as the upper bound to satisfy all parties? — Bility (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Nominations: seems like instruction creep to me. Let the 10 do it as they please.
1: Fine with me. Go ahead.
2: I don't get it? Seems fine to me as it is.
3: OK with me, but change "involved in" to "subject to". One can be involved as a witness etc.
Percent range: It would not satisfy me, so it would not satisfy all parties. I'm getting tired of going around in circles on this. I've already explained, at great length, why splitting the difference won't work. Show me evidence. And please read what I've already said, because I get sick of being asked to repeat myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From your "Nominations:" response, I gather that all nominators are allowed to collaborate on the statement and evidence. From his comments above, I believe it appeared to TenOfAllTrades that only the original nominator could modify that section. Since I too read it that way, perhaps we can put some explicit working in to that effect for clarity. For change 2, I took the sentence to refer to the subject of the previous sentence "nominations that do not focus on ...", while it seems it can interpreted as referring to the type of the subject: " ... the core issue of whether the community ... trust[s] the administrator". The confusion lies in what is the issue? If "not focusing on the core issue" is not your issue, then you're in the right place. If "whether the community ... trust[s] the administrator" is not your issue, then you're in the wrong place. So I propose both sentences be rewritten as they are somewhat ambiguous. For the percent range, I do understand your reasoning and agree with it. I would be happy with 80%. I only suggested the range because (even before the drama below) I didn't think we could finish the Guide with you and Matt both never budging on the number. Thanks for considering my changes! :) — Bility (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems rather a moot point now. So much for trying to bring things together. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't give up. If you let me know your thoughts I plan to go back to what we were doing before Matt reverted our collaboration. — Bility (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, but that assumes that we can go back at all. At this point, I'm at my wit's end. For nominations, I don't know what wording you would use, since I never was confused about that apparent ambiguity. I'd have no objection to you making a bold edit and then we'll see what it looks like. For #2, I'd say the same: see what you can do with it. I think we already agree about #1 and #3. And you know what I think about the percentages. But I'm saying all that in regard to the way the page was before the string of reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the changes you didn't have a problem with in an edit and split the other ones up to easily see what changed. I didn't touch the percentage, as it's an obvious case where we have no consensus. What is the next step? Should we open up new topics (again) for canvassing and the upper percentage to try and come to an agreement on those? — Bility (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just as I was about to give up in a huff, I saw your edits, and I've got to say that I appreciate them very much! Thank you! I've looked at them, and they all make very good sense to me, even the ones I didn't understand before. I fully support what you did. As for the next step, I have no idea. Maybe I shouldn't even express an opinion. I suppose it's a matter of waiting a bit, and letting other editors see it, and then seeing where we stand then. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You are lucky you din't try to meatpuppet Bility past the 3RR, as you did Jusdafax and MacDui - no wonder you are greatful: you were almost standing alone. I'll be returning some order to it tomorrow, and we can move from a sensible position. You cannot deny people just because they are out of the room (or out at a concert, eh?). Consensus will be rule the day, or it's no do do. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That is so untrue! I hope you are not implying that you intend to edit war as soon as it is technically more than 24 hours. You would do better to realize that you are actually the one who is alone in this at the moment, and come back willing to work with what other editors have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Alone? From you and Bility (who has accepted I want to bring stuff back in, and sees it as par for the course). You just don't get this idea of the wider community do you. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Bility can speak for himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
FFS, Tryptofish. Twice now on his Talk, Bility has clearly stated his normative approach regarding editing existing edits, including my own (Talk is where people normally deal with these matters - not in places like this). He expects people to come back to try and fit in their previous stuff. You routinely speak for others and then immediately accuse me of doing the same thing - now by saying I am "alone" when I simply am not. Virtually all my edits on CDA are from concerns raised by others - I do NOT stand alone, and I only ever relate other editor's positions when they have first made them unambiguously clear. Are you just trying to wind me up to the point where you think I will vaporise in anger or something? (it might yet happen). You clearly want to get rid of me, that was clear by that daft (and backfiring) AN/I you decided to file on GoodDay's behalf. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Backfire? Actually, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Note from Matt Lewis (refactored from above)

It was also addressed by Matt as well at one point! I've just come back in to say that I've changed my mind about CDA, and can no longer support it as a form of Admin Recall. It was a running horse when I came to it, and I've spent a lot of energy defending it (mostly in principal pending changes), but over the process of working on it I've changed my mind over its viability. My decision has not been expressed here yet - so I am doing it here as a record.

It's a big U-turn I admit, but a recent and linked 'AN/I' on me has showed me in a 'first hand' way how CDA simply cannot work. 'Mob rule' isn't just about editors - it's about admin too, and there's the rub. A strong Canvassing section could possibly stop editors from putting a decent admin on the rack, but no canvassing rules can stop admin from behaving badly. Bureaucrat's just would not want that to happen in such a public forum - it would prejudice Wikipedia itself before, during and after the CDA, and make their job impossible. I now can't imagine any of the Bureaucrats supporting any 'version' of a CDA proposal. Ironically (given the above post) I now fully agree with Jehochman: decent editors will be hounded down, and I fear that it could even be the norm. I just never saw it in terms of bad admin before, only bad editors. The final irony is that it is bad admin that will ultimately make CDA an impossible matter.

There are other forms of Admin Recall though, and RfA can always be improved (and should be anyway frankly, regardless of things like CDA). Every stage is a stage closer to change. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Archive_5&oldid=1257489928"