Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Remove the scarlet letter clause

ArbCom has placed topic bans and other sanctions without any intention of those sanctions being used for any other purpose. We should not create an underclass of editors, those with the scarlet S for sanction. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a point raised earlier by Newyorkbrad. At that time, we made a lot of changes to take out things like "editor in good standing", and we discussed what to do with this clause that you have drawn attention to here. The issue was that this paragraph refers only to the ten editors who would be the nominators, and not to everyone who might contribute to the CDA if it were to be certified. My opinion is that it is good to have this language, because it intentionally makes it difficult to make a successful nomination. Like many others who have commented, I believe a potential problem with CDA is the nomination of good administrators for frivolous or spiteful reasons, and I want to make it difficult for that to happen. As the current language says, those persons with "scarlet letters" simply need to convince ten editors to take up their cause, and if they can't, their complaint probably lacks merit anyway. If they can, then they will be free to !vote and comment after certification. But I want certification to be really difficult, and this restriction seems to me to be pretty reasonable, and hardly a bad mark that follows anyone around to pages other than CDA. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman on this one – ArbCom has been explicit in saying they don't want their sanctions "sticking" to editors like this. If the ArbCom sanction doesn't have anything to do with the admin, then this rule isn't serving its purpose anyway. If the admin was involved with the nominator at ArbCom, it's usually part of the sanctions that they can't interact with parties on the other side of the issue. And if the nominator was at ArbCom specifically to seek redress from the nominated admin, then opening a request at CDA would be either WP:FORUMSHOPPING or just part of the required dispute resolution process, depending on the relationship between CDA and ArbCom. I think a Bureaucrat already has enough opportunity to speedily close a bad faith nomination on its merits, without a blackout on editors under ArbCom sanctions. — Bility (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I have this suggestion. The passage in question currently begins: "may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions, Arbitration Committee restrictions," and then goes on to sanctions by the community, to which the ArbCom issues raised here do not, as I understand it, apply. I suggest we change it to: "may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions or Arbitration Committee restrictions that explicitly preclude acting as a CDA nominator in the case in question," with the wording that follows staying the same. That means that ArbCom can still (probably rarely) order that a person not do this, but in the majority of situations where they do not address CDA, then the issue of concern here goes away. Now I want to say that I, personally, have low enthusiasm for this edit. I'm simply proposing it, frankly, because I want this whole discussion to go away so we can move on to an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If ArbCom has restricted an editor from being a CDA nominator, then that's enough for the Bureaucrat to speedily close it – why reiterate in the Guide? In general I see too much duplication of normal Wikipedia policy in the Guide. I prefer to let anything unmentioned default to the appropriate policies so the document can focus simply on rules specific to CDA or exceptions to existing policies. In trying to read through all previous discussion to prepare myself to help with the Guide, I'm sure I didn't get the same sense of what concerns were most important to the community as someone who was there during the process, so I understand that you know better than I whether this is a very important issue. In that case, I'm happy with your rewording if you think it's necessary. Shall we wait to see what Jehochman has to say as well? — Bility (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like, then, to go ahead and make that edit. Jehochman started the motion to close and has already said that he will oppose the proposal no matter what. I'd like to close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, best of luck. :) — Bility (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've made the edit, and will go ahead with the RfC in about half and hour or so. Thank you very much for your help. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing pt. ∞

First, the two versions (I think there are two):

From Matt Lewis

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.

For an accurate an honest record, I've replaced the above with the new Canvassing section I was adapting per discussion - and I was even copying it all out again too, to leave no ambiguity of my changes! Did you actually read any of it Tryptofish?

Also, twice now people have made new headings in my name, with them looking like I have made them myself. NOBODY DO THAT AGAIN. I am no longer support CDA as a concept, but I still exist. This has been a 'you are part of the club or you not' proposal since early Jan. The controlling throughout CDA has been unrelenting. Queue reversing all the blame to my door - part of a tight formula. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From Tryptofish & Bility

Canvassing

During the seven day nomination period, nominators may use {{CDA-nom}} on user talk pages to contact only sufficiently many interested editors to obtain the required number of signatures. The nominated administrator may likewise use {{CDA-admin}} on user talk pages at any time during the process. A bulleted list of all contacted parties must be kept on the nomination page. Otherwise, WP:CANVASS must be strictly obeyed at all times.

Discussion

NOTE. The following assessments of Matt Lewis's 'proposal' are for a early version of my new Canvassing section, which was promoted as my 'proposal' withough my consent. The work on it has been ignored. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

quick links: #From Matt Lewis  · #From Tryptofish & Bility

Obviously, Matt's is much longer and provides more rules. For clarity's sake, I think we should aim for the simplest, shortest canvassing section that can include everyone's input. My take on the differences and resolutions:

• Matt has a lead section explaining the dangers involved specifically with CDA. While I don't think guesses on how canvassing can muck up a CDA request are necessary, I think the lead is a good idea to let readers know why there is a separate section about it and why WP:CANVASS isn't good enough.
• "Signature collecting phase" vs. "Nomination period". Both are the seven day period that start when someone creates and signs the CDA request. The latter, however, is used throughout the Guide so I don't see a need to obfuscate the time period we're talking about with a new, different title.
• Matt's version calls for "a valid reason why the person contacted might agree to the CDA" and goes on to define what such a reason may be. I think this may add bias to requests, as the reason will be a likely venue for attempting to convince. I think reading the statement and evidence on the CDA request will inform the reader, and it can be assumed that the user was picked for this talk page request because support is already expected of them.
• On the "No canvassing abuse" section: it's far too wordy and WP:CREEPY.
• Contacted parties: In Matt's version these are people contacted after the nomination has been certified for specific input. In Tryptofish & Bility's, this is everyone contacted for any reason from the beginning of the CDA request .
• Overall reasons for a canvassing section: Matt seems to imply, from reading his version, that this section is important to limit canvassing before the discussion and polling phase to reduce drama and frivolous requests that get certified because canvassing brought in the 10 signatures. From a comment by Tryptofish, I got the impression this section is needed to allow the nominated administrator the ability to drum up support on his behalf. Is it one or the other or both?

I'm hoping we can discuss changes here in this section and make changes below in the New version section and someday come up with wording that's acceptable for everyone. — Bility (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think Bility's analysis is a good one. I'm not convinced that the added information in the suggested version below really adds that much, relative to the T&B version. I can see some value in the sentence about nominators using their talk pages, although, once the template is on the talk page, further discussion is clearly not canvassing and not an issue. The introductory section strikes me largely as a discussion of philosophy, followed by a statement about striking improper contributions that is redundant with what the draft already says elsewhere. I do see one problem that would need to be fixed: the sentence about the bullet list sounds like it applies only to the administrator. It should not. So, either it would have to move up to the introductory part, or it would have to be repeated in both the nominators and the administrator subsections. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes made. I forgot to say in my edit summary, but I also put emphasis on "sufficiently many" with regards to how many people nominators should be contacting. How's it read now? — Bility (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have seen on your talk page that the nature of the discussion may, perhaps, be changing here. I'm not convinced that there is a need to change the page from the T&B version, but my suggestion is to just wait a day or two and then see where things stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Matt is bowing out of helping to form the proposal. Between the two of us, I think we can probably make any last changes to the document and have it up for review in no time at all. Since Jusdafax hasn't gone live with his, we would be in a better position as the first proposal put forward. — Bility (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left Jusdafax a note about this. My personal opinion is that I'm satisfied with this page now. My suggestion would be to just wait a bit longer before committing to anything, and see whether the situation really is what it appears. There's no urgency. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. Maybe if things calm down in the intervening time, some of the editors we've lost will feel comfortable coming back for further discussion. :) — Bility (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I say on my page and Ben MacDui's as well, I am standing by. Jusdafax 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

New version

quick links: #From Matt Lewis  · #From Tryptofish & Bility

• Section title: Canvassing

To limit the amount of frivolous nominations that become certified, WP:CANVASS will be strictly enforced during the CDA process. An exception is made to allow the nominated administrator adequate means to solicit evidence from other users on his behalf. A bulleted list of all contacted parties must be kept on the nomination page.

During the seven day nomination period, nominators should use {{CDA-nom}} on user talk pages to initiate discussion with only sufficiently many interested editors to obtain the required number of signatures. After nominators have signed in support, they are of course free to collaborate on the nomination's statement and evidence section.

Using {{CDA-admin}}, the nominated administrator may contact other parties at any time during the CDA process to ask for evidence that they have properly used the sysop rights.

Re-evaluating the current situation with the Cda proposal(s) in the wake of recent events

It appears Mr. Lewis no longer believes in Cda, and will no longer be a contributor.

It seems to me the question becomes one of: shall I just quickly open, as I had intended, a RfC on the original Uncle G proposal for Cda, or shall we have a brief, and hopefully polite and constructive discussion on the merits of an attempt at reconciling the current version, here, with the original?

I stoutly maintain that Uncle G's simple, yet potent idea of a 'reverse Rfa' is, as I see it, of critical importance. And there are other vital points that got lost in the past few months. If the parties remaining, after the recent drama, feel open to a brief re-evaluation of the proposal, then I will hold off a bit longer. I don't want drama, or any of the recent unpleasantness, and will instantly withdraw in the face of any further such. I don't want to take further weeks either, but a few days of discussion. I merely make this offer out of respect for various parties involved who remain interested in the concept of Community de-adminship.

For many months everyone here was working with determination and good cheer towards a common goal. It is important to me, above all, to return to that method, regardless of the outcome. If it is decided that there is too much distance between the versions, we can simply wish each other well and go on our way. Jusdafax 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My take on it: I logged in today several minutes ago in the hope of initiating the RfC on the revised proposal here. I believe that, as of this point, we have reached the point where we are simply re-re-discussing the same issues that were already discussed before, with most remaining expressions of concern coming from editors who have plainly stated that they intend to oppose the proposal no matter what further edits we make to it. I would like to start the RfC in the next few hours if possible. On seeing what is here today, I'm aware of two things: Jusdafax raises the issue of somehow combining this proposal with the original draft by Uncle G from which it was derived, and Bility expressed continued concern about the so-called (mis-called, in my strong opinion) "scarlet letter" clause. I've just suggested a compromise wording to address the latter, and I hope that it is sufficient. As for going back and partly reverting this proposal back to be more like the original draft, I see no good reason to do so. As a sort of post-note, I want to thank Jusdafax for raising the possibility of a "competing" RfC, because, in a paradoxical way, it has actually proven to have been very helpful in pushing the discussion here to what I ardently hope is a conclusion. And I ardently hope it is a conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is now open. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What a way to start it! After misleading people of an absent contributor's concerns (to the central CDA matter too). I put a lot of work into the Canvassing section (even my first version you put as a proposal "From Matt"), but there we are. CDA has proven to be fundamentally flawed re canvassing and admin - far too many of the more experiences Wikipedians, it seem to me, can clearly see the problems the invitable disruption and unfairness will cause. We'll see what happens. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The mess continues, then, but just in a different venue. Right. Jusdafax 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to CdA's Introduction

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

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

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

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

What is the following (current intro) actually saying?

"What the process is

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

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

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

My proposed change:

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

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

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

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

I have two issues:

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

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

I believe the intention here was to protect admins from CDA with the charge of "not doing anything". There's probably a better way to put this and still carry protection from that charge. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New issue

I see a pretty big loophole here, and I propose the following amendment--

"Disputes with an administrator must be discussed first with that administrator be discussed first A reasonable effort must be made to discuss the disputes first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels such as third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration."

The reason I'm proposing the amendment is simple: Let's say there's a dispute, and the administrator ignores all requests to discuss the dispute (or immediately disappears from the wiki not to be seen again for some time). In doing so, (s)he protects the adminship privileges, even though a reasonable effort is being made to try to discuss it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. NJA (t/c) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And who's going to enforce this policy?

...the same admins who don't enforce existing policies? Be serious. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. It seems to me that the principal new feature of this policy is that it allows a bottom-up proposal from non-admins, and then determine the outcome via an emergent process. N2e (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deluding yourself. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reisio, the purpose of CDA is not to eradicate the "sysop" user access level, but rather to remove the sysop bit from the minority of admins (1%, 5%, or 10%, I don't know) who display a pattern of abusing or misusing the tools, or who lose the community's trust through their actions. All admins are not evil. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello admin! :D HAIIIIIIII ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

... And? Am I evil?

My friends have called me "cheeky", "mischievous", "perverted", "a sick puppy", and "a sick and twisted individual" (the fact that they remain my friends suggests that they were joking or that they also are sick and twisted), but I've yet to reach the depths of true evil.

If you assert that I am evil, then please provide evidence to support that assertion (other than the fact that I have read the Evil Overlord List). If you do not assert that I am evil and assert only that I am a sysop, then please see ad hominem circumstantial: a possible or potential "disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false". Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you can say it in Latin, it must be true. :) It doesn't make it false, nor true, but irrelevant. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suum cuique, I suppose. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) If you have an unwavering commitment to the belief that anyone who is a sysop cannot be trusted, or to the belief that being a sysop renders "irrelevant" any comment or argument about sysops or adminship, then I am afraid that I lack the ability (and, to be honest, the inclination) to attempt to sway you from your faith. With best wishes, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello admin! :D HAIIIIIIII ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)