Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC/Archive 1

Late?
"IT IS EXPECTED TO BECOME A LIVE RfC ON OR ABOUT 30th January 2010." Is it late? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is late as the proposal remains under discussion. I will change the date. Ben  Mac  Dui  14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Format of the RfC
It appears that this page was copy & paste moved, shortly after I made a number of suggested changes accompanied by detailed explanation, but immediately after all of my changes were reverted:. This sort of problem is why I was so concerned about the format of the poll, and explicitly raised this matter earlier: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC. I hoped that we were on the same figurative page there. I'll try to hit the high points again.

The introduction. I use 'introduction' here to describe the block of text which heads the page. This is the first thing that people will see when they come to the poll. It should be as neutral, unambiguous, and unbaised as we can possibly achieve. It is also something that we should be able achieve a consensus on before the vote goes live &mdash; which probably means it needs to be short and to the point. (Just the facts, ma'am.) Since Tryptofish won't let any edits I make stand, I'll give you some text here.
 * This poll concerns a proposal to implement a new mechanism for removing administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
 * You can read the proposed new policy at Guide to Community de-adminship.
 * The outcome of this poll will determine whether or not this proposal becomes Wikipedia policy. The polling period begins at time and date and ends time and date plus 30 days .

It's short, it's to the point, it explains the purpose of the page, it provides an unpiped link directly to the proposal being voted on.

The FAQ. The FAQ is written by editors who strongly endorse CDA. That's fine; they should have the opportunity to present their arguments in favor of the process. I see no problem with presenting those arguments in the 'Discussion' section of the poll however and wherever the proposal's proponents feel is suitable. However, the FAQ does not belong in the introduction. That implies a degree of broad acceptance of the FAQ's structure and conclusions which isn't justified. The entire first page of the 'Discussion' will apparently be a presentation of the pro-CDA viewpoint; the introduction should be neutral. When I edited the poll page, I moved the link to the FAQ into the 'See also' right under the 'Background' header. If the proponents prefer to put it somewhere else in the 'Discussion', that's good too.

The nutshell. The nutshell is unnecessary. The introduction is already brief and to the point, and explains clearly what the poll is about; there's no need to add in a two-sentence summary of the preceding four-sentence section. The subsequent content of the 'discussion' section gives the proposal's proponents ample time and space to fully elaborate on what they see as the merits and justification of the proposed process. In any event, the nutshell here adds to confusion instead of removing it. It draws a potentially confusing parallel between the term 'Admin Recall' (which has historically been used on Wikipedia to refer to a series of individually-established, voluntary criteria and processes) and CDA, which is this new, compulsory, proposed process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since Tryptofish won't let..." Oh, my. Please see what I said at User talk:Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This poll isn't a private document, to be prepared by the proponents of the proposal only. You're attempting to conduct a scrupulously neutral, unbiased, inclusive, open poll of as much of the Wikipedia community as possible.  There is a moral obligation that the introduction to this poll – describing its purpose and parameters, nothing more – be as fair, unambiguous, and unslanted as we can possibly make it.  You'll notice that I haven't objected to the poll Discussion section opening with as many arguments and justfications as you wish, but the intro text, above the fold, should be utterly above reproach or criticism.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Closure. The current text reads "When the debate here is concluded, it will be closed in the usual way.". What does that mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Requests for comment. Ben   Mac  Dui  10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've amended the second sentence per your suggestion. I agree about the nutshell in that it has been largely superceded by the revised introduction. However I don't think it is doing any real harm. I'm not sure about the FAQ - I think it would get lost if placed lower down and the caveat is pretty clear. It is hard to imagine that counter-arguments are not going to be offered prominently on the RfC page itself when the discussion gets going. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My view of 'nutshell' statements and the nutshell template is that they should only be used to provide short, consensus-guided summaries of pages (usually policies and guidelines). In this case, that purpose is served by the introductory material in the header section.  I am, however, concerned by both the header and the nutshell wording about the purpose of this page; I'll comment further on that in the next section, since that seems to be where it's going. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I no longer see much purpose for the nutshell. I was retaining it previously only because I had understood MacDui to tell me that he wanted, at that time, to retain the contents of what is now that section of the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Start/Re-start
I'm having to revert these while writing out an rfc/u. Cannot we sit down and talk about this? It is madness. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Madness it is, but as the number of individuals both awake and watching these pages is probably very small, (for reasons I imagine are obvious) and some may actively oppose the whole concept I am not sure how any kind of well developed "consensus" can be contrived unless a whole new cadre of individuals, (with of course a whole new set of suggestions and tweaks) appears. Furthermore adding "needs to be discussed" to items that, in my opinion have been discussed to death and without any positive suggestion, is pretty pointless. However, rather engaging in a childish series of reverts here is my suggestion. I propose that this RfC goes live today, using this version by Tryptofish at 16:30, 6 February 2010, plus the capitalised "Please do not amend during the RFC per this edit or similar. To repeat what I have said several times already, I personally have no interest in further long discussions. It is the consensus of the community regarding the principle that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can (ever) agree on the precise wording required. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never understood your "weariness" MAcDui, and these things have not been "discussed to death" imo at all. Changing tack from honing the proposal to floating the idea to the community is not one I agree with. It is neither fish nor foul. I'm simply into discussing more - and people are discussing matters. I'm giving all the time to CDA that I have. People like TenOfUs and Hammersoft, though still highly critical, are engaging more now. Why not stick with it? So often I've seen things prematurely pushed out fail dismally on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to say this briefly. I agree with MacDui. I also think that, no matter how much longer we continue to discuss this, Matt will always have one more issue that just has to be discussed before starting the RfC, and the RfC will never start. But I will refrain from edit warring over this. I am just going to step back and see what happens. I remain confident that the community, as a whole, would like to see this proposal brought forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that you have no evidence for saying that I'm always going to have "one more extra thing". I did try and address a new problem with a new idea recently (more - as promised - later), but all the issues I've personally been working on have been there for a while. Things have been cropping up, no-one can really deny that. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Before you go live, I want to know why it is that the link to the FAQ, written by and for the proposal's proponents, shouldn't go with the rest of their arguments in favor of the proposal. Tryptofish had resisted any attempt to move it to the 'Discussion' section, but I'd like to hear from someone else on the matter.  The header on this page is for neutral, factual information about the format and specifications of the voting process; it shouldn't be part of the campaigning either direction.
 * (edit conflict) This is one of the many things that I don't feel strongly about. If you think it would be better positioned after "Closure" and above "Poll" that' is fine by me. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As well, there hasn't been any sound answer to the question of how a decision is made upon closure of this RfC. Ben MacDui referred me above to Requests for comment, but that doesn't actually contain any information about making a decision.  (Probably because RfC isn't usually used as a method for carrying out a vote.)  That link simply notes the standard timelines for the RfC bot.  How is this vote going to be closed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm assuming you mean "what happens when the discussion is closed". The !votes would be counted and as per the previous three stages a short summary arrived at. There are several possible outcomes, the simplest of which are either <50% support or overwhelming support. In the former case the process is closed with no further action. In the latter, the proposal would then go to the 'crats and Jimmy Wales for review. One imagines in such a case they would review it with a view to implementing it, but who can say for sure? If, as is quite probable there is some unclarity in the outcome - a very small majority in favour, an apparent majority in favour of the general principle but with significant numbers only offering support subject to some change to the wording or numbers etc., then it gets more complicated. A discussion would no doubt ensue with those in support arguing for a way to move onto the next stage. In such a circumstance it is clear that the weaker the support the less likely that the review would be favourable. Hope that is helpful. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) PS This is just a personal opinion but in my view unless there is a clear majority in favour (without caveats) I can't see it being implemented.


 * We'll deal with a few things (inc the FAQ), don't worry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose the idea to start now, not so much due to proposal issues but because the format of this page hasn't really been vetted by a broader community or seen a significant number of eyes, or been widely linked (4 incoming links at this time seems awfully low). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Christopher the wording has been on display both here and at WP:CDADR in a slightly earlier form since late November. I have no idea how many people have actually looked at it but it would have been available to all those who participated at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1 and after. What is it in practical terms, that you think needs to be done? Ben   Mac  Dui  16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think Christopher Parham may be concerned about the format of the poll page, rather than the format of the CDA proposal itself &mdash; is that correct? The format and structure of the poll were only revisited fairly recently on one of the myriad talk pages.  Moreover, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the purpose of this poll, even now.  Is this meant to be a proper vote on whether or not to accept this policy proposal, or is this just another request for comment that happens to contain a straw poll section?
 * That is my assumption too, and my comments stand. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also still the issue of what happens should this proposal manage to garner a middling level of support (45 - 65%) instead of the clear consensus which is usually required to make policy on Wikipedia. Finally, there is the question of what happens after the vote, if the proponents feel that they can generate an 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote.  Do we vote again?  At this point, there's been more than four months of discussion to generate a document that is substantially identical to the one put forward by Uncle G in early October last year. How much more work is necessary, and how many bites at the apples will be required?   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only agree about the last point. As to the first, if I knew what the result was going to be I would tell you what I think should happen next. As I said above anything less than 50% means the process ends. My view is that anything much less than 65% would make it hard to argue that taking it forward was useful, but there may be all kinds of complications. Re an " 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote" what I mean is if 40% say yes, 40% say yes, but with a change of wording - (say) the closure wording from RfA only, and 20% say no. That is an overwhelming yes but with a caveat that would have to be discussed and worked on. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the major contributors to preparing this proposal (the CDA/Rfc) are in disagreement (as is currently the case), it wouldn't be the best course of action (IMHO) to present the proposal to the community, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, actually, and I'm going to try to step back and get out of the way for a while. But there is something more needed, beyond what GoodDay just said: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The meta-discussion is about the value of an essentially elitist system of perhaps over-worked but informed and trusted individuals (ArbCom) versus a populist system that could work more quickly and deal with a wider range of issues. These are complex issues but at present the evidence of this process is beginning to suggest that the latter is too deeply mired in what some of my friends might call performative contradiction to be effective. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not perfoming a CDA, we are still developing it. WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia moves forward, and that will apply for CDA in practice, and also of course for it's development. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. It's not enough to have the same small group re-discussing the same things over and over. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)