User:Matt Lewis/sandbox2

Nomination
Nominations are made by creating a sub-page of Community de-adminship, which is named after the account being nominated. For example, to nominate the User:Example for community de-adminship, you would create a new page Community de-adminship/Example.

Nominations may be made in either of two ways:
 * By the Arbitration Committee: The Arbitration Committee may, by a motion, decide to refer the decision about the sysop right to the Community for consensus. An Arbitrator or a clerk must sign the nomination, linking to the Committee's motion.
 * By the Community at large: Nomination by the Community at large requires the signatures of at least 10 editors (whose eligibility to do so is defined below), within a period no longer than 7 days. Signatures must be placed in the nomination area of the requests, as a simple signed bullet point.

Nominations are expected to provide a short, single, and objective statement of the nomination, supported by detailed and specific evidence.

Certification
Discussion does not open until an Arbitration Committee clerk, a Bureaucrat, or an Arbitration Committee member certifies a nomination as valid. Nominations are not valid unless all of the following apply:
 * 10 eligible editor signatures have been collected, or the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion.
 * A notice of the de-adminship request is placed on each of Village pump (miscellaneous), the Administrators' noticeboard, and the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. (Anyone may post such a notice.)
 * A notice of the Community de-adminship request is placed on the nominated administrator's talk page.

The nominators
When a nomination is made by 10 editors, those editors:


 * must be editors on the English Wikipedia with accounts at least 3 months old and with at least 500 edits.
 * must have signed the nomination personally, and within the 7 day period for their signatures to be valid.

The following terms and restrictions also apply:


 * Editors who are subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions, Arbitration Committee restrictions, or Community restrictions, including, but not limited to, topic bans, project bans, and paroles, must have permission from the group or persons empowered to lift those restrictions, such as the Arbitration Committee.


 * Editors under a block restriction cannot be a nominator, unless they were blocked by the administrator being reviewed and the nomination is materially related to that block. In this case, an uninvolved administrator, on request, shall unblock the editor for the sole purpose of participation in the CDA.


 * Nomination by editors of an administrator who is currently part of an active arbitration process must be done by permission of the Arbitration Committee.

Canvassing and discussion rules
(needs discussion:)

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

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

Requesting support

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

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

This message;


 * must include a valid reason why the person contacted might agree to the CDA. A valid reason might be a previous complaint or disagreement made by the person being contacted about the administrator for whom a CDA is proposed. Note that it is not acceptable to only cite a complaint or disagreement by the administrator towards the person being contacted.


 * must ask the contacted user to read this CDA guideline page, and ideally provide a direct link.

No canvassing abuse

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

The following rules apply:


 * All discussion on the nomination amongst (and between) those who have signed the nomination form, and editors involved in discussion on the nominated administrator (specifically regarding matters detailed in the Before nomination phase), must be restricted to their user talk pages.


 * The only other nomination-related discussion allowed are to the nominee, and to administrators when asking technical advice.

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

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

Discussion and poll
Discussion and polling are a combined phase, which proceeds for at least 7 days after discussion opens, but may be summarily closed ahead of the deadline at the discretion of Bureaucrats or the Arbitration Committee.

Discussions are subject to the usual rules.

Community de-adminship discussions follow the normal Wikipedia talk page etiquette. All editors are reminded in particular that the No personal attacks policy applies to all parts of a de-adminship request.

Extended discussion belongs on the discussion page, not in the poll.

Please discuss on the discussion page (the talk page of the CDA request). The main CDA page is for the nomination, the poll, and the closure. Any discussion on the main page that is not evaluating the level of community support for a given Administrator may be 'refactored' to the dicussion page.

To extended a comment within the poll, or to begin a discussion of an indirectly related point, link to a section on the talk page.

Anyone may participate in the discussion.

Civil and relevant discussion, based upon Wikipedia's 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 currently blocked users are not permitted and will either be removed or struck out.

Editors under a block restriction can be temporarily unblocked by an uninvolved administrator upon request, provided they were blocked by the administrator being reviewed and the nomination is materially related to that block. The block will be lifted for the duration of, and the sole purpose of participating in, the CDA.

The poll
There is only one poll of signatures in CDA, because there is only one thing to assess: whether there is sufficient consensus for removing the sysop right. It should be noted that CDA is not structured like a user RfC, and is not a replacement for Requests for comments.

The poll contains three sections:


 * support


 * oppose


 * neutral

An opinion is registered with a signed numbered list entry (the # markup).

Please comment next to your vote!
Commenting next to the vote is strongly encouraged. !Votes presented without an accompanying rationale, and "per" comments (ie "per 'User' above") are both strongly discouraged, and risk being discounted by the closing Bureaucrat.

Change your mind?
All participants (including the nominators) may change their minds at any time during the discussion period. To signify that, they can strike through the old opinion (changing the # markup to #: so that the list numbering remains correct) and sign the new opinion. Note that the actual nominations were certified before this poll, and can no longer be stricken.

Participants are encouraged to follow the discussion wisely, and to refrain from signing or re-signing in haste.