Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy

Everything here has been integrated into other pages.

See WT:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship and Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC.

This project page follows on from a complex process: and is a step towards creating an RfC that would aim to have WP:CDA implemented.
 * begun at Community de-adminship and WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall
 * continued at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

All contributors are welcome, although it would be helpful to have a working understanding of the existing process and its intentions.

This is NOT the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or demerits.

Process 1: Analysis of Draft RfC

 * Analyse the draft RfC and produce a table of results.
 * Draw conclusions about those results.
 * Amend the Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship as appropriate.

Process 2: RfC - what to include
Figure out what the RfC needs to include.

Administrators is a policy and if the WP:CDA receives community support would need to be amended. This should therefore be referred to as part of the formal RfC (see below).

Guide to requests for adminship is described as a "guide to current practice".

Requests for adminship is described as a "process" and is not listed as a policy or guideline.

This suggests that in addition to any useful background per WT:CDADR the RfC should state that the proposal is to:
 * Amend the policy Wikipedia:Administrators.....
 * Amend WP:CDA so that it states that it is a "process"
 * Implement WP:CDA via the Guide to Community de-adminship, which will be described as a "guide to current practice".

Ideally the main proposal would be a yes/no question with the usual sections for support/oppose/neutral although there may need up being a choice between competing options if the current process does not resolve this.

Process 3: Actual RfC wording
Below: NB - drop sections by one level when going live.

Proposal 1
The {rfctag|policy} would go at the top of the page.


 * Please read below "Background", "Purpose of this Discussion", and "General Observation" for an introduction to what is going on.
 * There is also a short FAQ here.
 * The workings of Community de-adminship (WP:CDA) are described in detail at Guide to Community de-adminship and Community de-adminship/Example).

Background
This discussion follows on from those at: 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.
 * WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall
 * the associated talk page.

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 – "Wikipedia:Community de-adminship" (CDA) – which received a majority of 13, and the support of 65% of those who considered it. This proposed process was designed as a "mirror image" of the existing Requests for adminship, and part of its appeal was evidently its familiarity.

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.

This led to lengthy discussions at: which attempted to iron out various issues in the then existing Guide to Community de-adminship. This resulted in:
 * Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
 * 1) Blah
 * 2) Blah blah
 * 3) Blah blah blah

Purpose of this discussion
The aim of this RfC and its associated discussion is to assess the support for Community de-adminship to be implemented on the English Wikipedia.

Between now and 8pm GMT on Xday Yth February 2010, discussion will continue here.


 * If sufficient consensus has been reached (see below) WP:CDA will be implemented subject to various steps identified below.
 * If sufficient consensus has not been reached, and further discussion would be useful, it will be extended.

General observation
In many cases the above discussions were a conflict between:
 * The desire to make the process simpler or easier to implement in order to avoid allowing those perceived as having abused their Administrative tools to continue without fear of sanction, and
 * The desire to avoid a system in which Administrators, who almost inevitably find themselves taking on potentially controversial tasks on the community's behalf, are discouraged from taking action for fear of reprisals via a Recall method that is too easy for aggrieved editors to make use of when they don't get their way.

The resulting changes to the Guide to Community de-adminship were a compromise between these two poles.

Main Proposal
That Community de-adminship be adopted as an approved community "process" in the same way that the existing Requests for adminship is at present.

Secondary Processes
If WP:CDA is adopted this will require two other amendments:
 * The Guide to Community de-adminship will be described as a "guide to current practice" in the same way that Guide to requests for adminship is at present.
 * It will also be necessary to amend the policy Administrators to include reference to the WP:CDA process. This step will be undertaken as a technical matter at that page as and when needed.

Closure
When the debate here is concluded it will be closed by the nominator in the usual way.

If the RfC ends in consesus to implement, such implementation will then be subject to review by the Bureaucrats and User:Jimbo Wales.