Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. |
| WikiProject Administrator (subpages) | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This page is for 'meta-discussion' about the RFC process itself (where CDA will put to the community), and what will constitute acceptance of the process, and how to begin using the process.
NOTE: This is NOT the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or problems:
- The CDA proposal itself (which this page discusses) is here
- To discuss the CDA in broader terms, go to: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
- For history and context, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall and the archives of this page.
'To do list' moved from draft RfC page, to be merged into here
[edit]- Complete above summary
- Transfer summary to WT:CDA for implementation
- Prepare the RfC by:
- Summary of Summary for "Background" section
- Decide on end date
- Creating FAQ inc (from discussion):
- Creating and expanding a section which compares CDA with ArbCom de-Admin and really answers the question "Why?":
- 1. Speed - would CDA be quicker than ArbCom?
- 2. Throughput - would it relieve the strain on ArbCom? Is ArbCom struggling at the moment?
- 3. Threshold - would it make de-Admin more likely? would it change the type of actions that would lead to de-Adminship?
- 4. Community vs Heirarchy - would it disrupt the so called "power structure" in WP? Would this be a good thing?
- 5. Involvement - would it increase the retention of non-admin contributors
- Creating and expanding a section which compares CDA with ArbCom de-Admin and really answers the question "Why?":
- Deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC
- Publicity on posting RfC per the above section.
We need to continue to observe here for late comments but soon, I think, it will be time to move the discussions on to WT:CDA and Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. I'd like to complete a quick analysis of the answers to Proposal 5 first - should get to that tomorrow. Ben MacDui 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having looked at #5 again, I think there are a few ideas that might go into an FAQ, but nothing I can see that would materially change the "result". Ben MacDui 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need to make a specific secion comparing CDA with Arbcom de-admin. All important points about the benefits of CDA can be made in the main summaries. CDA is not just a fairer/better process than existing ones (need it actually replace Arbcom de-admin - or whatever else there is - anyway?) - it is a new and necessary thing in itself. Over comparing could muddy and over-complicate matters - CDA can speak for itself, so we should be careful here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please check what I say if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of three pages editors should be looking at, at this point, in regard to developing what will go before the community:
Did I miss anything? Just trying to keep us all on the same page (pages!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are mentioned in the draft RFC on the project page. Ben MacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: After we have the proposal finalized, might it be a good idea to full-protect the first two of those three pages linked just above, so that they don't get modified ad hoc while the community is, for the most part, reading them for the first time? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree this could be useful, although I am not sure how it squares with Protection policy. Ben MacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- comment: I really don't think we need the FAQ. I think it rather overcomplicates and oversimplifies at the same time. They very often fall short - and I can't see things in it that aren't better stated properly elsewhere. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't read the FAQ yet, but I will. I think the issue is editors who say the status quo is fine so why do we need this at all, and
trollask us to name admins who would be the first subjects of the process. The trick will be to (a) have an answer for those objections that predictably will be made, and (2) not accidentally raise new questions needlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)- OK, I just read the FAQ. I think it will serve a very good purpose during the final community process and should be included. People will have some of these questions. But I would suggest shortening it, so as to answer the needed questions without raising new ones. I'll explain that, and make other tweaks, at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Older 'To Do' for this page
[edit]To do
|
|---|
Process 1: Analysis of Draft RfC[edit]
Process 2: RfC - what to include[edit]Figure out what the RfC needs to include.
Wikipedia: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). Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is described as a "guide to current practice". Wikipedia: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:
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. Or, to put it another way - deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC. Process 3: Complete FAQ[edit]
Process 4: Timing[edit]
|