Misplaced Pages

talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 29 January 2010 (→A simple model: better wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:29, 29 January 2010 by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) (→A simple model: better wording)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives
Archive 1 - The CDA Revision Proposals
Archive 2 - Subsequent discussion
Archive 3 - Discussion since Jan 4th

Shortcut

Template:WPAdmin Navigation


Quick links

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

See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator/Five Problems with a Single Solution

This discussion follows on from those at Misplaced Pages: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 – "Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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

See also: Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/userboxes

The aim of this project page and its associated discussion is to refine the existing Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

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

Summary of prior discussions and polls

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 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

  • 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"

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages (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

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

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Late Comments"

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!

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

Below are active discussions.

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

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 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

Archived here.

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

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 to reveal >

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages life. It is vital for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages), 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

  • "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 * 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 * 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

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.

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

  • 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 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 ?" 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

  • 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?
    • 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 * 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

  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

  • In my comment at Vote 3, I note that I think RfC should be a requirement. Currently the guide holds "a suitable venue, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard or Misplaced Pages: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?

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

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? Happy‑melon 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

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) 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: Misplaced Pages 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

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

(comments moved here from under the poll)

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

  • 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)
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. Durova 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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages simply is. Stonewalling (and bloating) tactics, and the various more subtle forms of trolling are far more damaging to Misplaced Pages than intelligently-made polls, which are great at showing what people want.
    Change on Misplaced Pages 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

  • 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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?

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

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

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)
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 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)
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 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 2

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.

VOTE 3

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.

VOTE 4

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)
  • ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Durova 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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 Misplaced Pages, 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\ 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ACTIVE DISCUSSION

Poll Results

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

25 in favour of 90, 28 in favour of 80 and 19 in favour of "none", which last result could reasonably be interpreted as meaning "consensus should be left up to a closing Bureaucrat".

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)

Interpretation of Poll Results

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. Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some initial observations:

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. Happy‑melon 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

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: ). 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)

What is the point of this page?

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)", 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 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".
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)

Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship (from the talk page of Cda originator Uncle G, October '09)

A great idea. How can it get approval, and what relationship does it have to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 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 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?). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

Concern about the "good standing" definition

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 "Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages.
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, 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 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

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. 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)

I have now added a summary of the poll results at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Need to announce

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)

Concerns about poll format

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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

A simple model

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 also 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!