User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/February

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi HighKing,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was 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.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


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

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt. There was no misunderstanding with my vote - I understood what was meant by "none".  Please keep my vote as is.  --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rennicks
Hi, you prodded Rennicks; however it was prodded and contested in September 2008, thereby making it permanently ineligible for prod. I have opened an AfD at Articles for deletion/Rennicks and copied your prod rationale. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. I hadn't realized it had previously been PRODded, thanks for opening the AfD.  --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

BI within Wikipedia
You're correct, we don't need Troubles Enforcement to impliment 1RR limits. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MBM
Obviously, I'm not going to contribute much until 二K, plays out his drama. But, while you do have top spot at ANI is it worth mentioning MBM's unreformed behaviour. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one edit. I'll wait and discuss at SE page if/when appropriate.  It's a serious allegation made against you - hopefully it'll be proved untrue.  --HighKing (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk
This tool lists all articles edited by at least two of the accounts entered. If there are three accounts, "2/3" means two of the three accounts edited that page, and [1,2] would mean the accounts numbered by Wikistalk as 1 and 2 made those edits. Of course it doesn't show you which pages they mostly edit or when they make their edits: Wikichecker does that. Those two tools together can ferret out sockpuppets without checkuser if the editor is a creature of habit. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)