Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Remaining questions

Not that I'm getting paid for this, folks, but here are all of the remaining issues that I'm aware of, that need or may need further discussion. It looks like a lot, but I think it's getting to where it's easier than it looks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Status: By my count, at this time, there are seven (7) items that are not yet done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: We should now be within about 24 hours of being able to commence the community RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing section

Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship#Canvassing and the discussion below at #Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship#Canvassing. We need to make sure the language has been worked out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Seems to be no compelling case for further changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about something MacDui said

Higher in this talk, MacDui said: "The RfC states at the end that "If the RfC ends in consensus to implement, such implementation will then be subject to review by the Bureaucrats". It would be possible to add a short Q in the FAQ asking why this is necessary along with an answer that this in particular is an area where we might specifically ask the 'crats to discuss and if necessary amend the wording." I do not understand what this means, in terms of any edits that might to be made now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this it: Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC? If so, please see #Poll page format below, and its associated links. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff concerned [1]. The subject is referred to below and this section can be considered closed. Ben MacDui 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inactive administrators

See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#What this process is not. It says "needs to be discussed" before the point about inactive accounts. My understanding is that it no longer needs discussion, and the paragraph is to be kept. Objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Its still in need of work ...and this process is not intended to cover that function until such a consensus is reached (if it ever is) commentary has no place on a policy page. Gnangarra 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're right. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly, possibly leave it saying there's no consensus to de-sysop for non-activity. Should that change in the future then fine, but as of now there's no consensus for it so just say that and move on. Yes? NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I had completely missed that before, so thanks both of you for drawing attention to it. I've removed the unnecessary sentence, and I hope that fixes it. Done? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no concerns with the current wording. NJA (t/c) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the "needs to be discussed". Ben MacDui 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the proposed version - I think the previous was significantly better. First, it's not clear what this means - who is responsible for determining that a valid reason besides inactivity has been produced? Second, without any opporuntity to defend himself, it is likely that the process will be materially unfair. Meanwhile, it is hard to imagine a situation where existing processes could not handle the problem - which, since the person by assumption is not using the tools, can't be that urgent. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The two versions currently up are:

(1) Removing the flag from inactive accounts

Any administrator account nominated here must be an account that has used editor or administrator tools recently.

(2) Removing the flag from inactive accounts

This process cannot be used to remove an Administrator's sysop rights solely because of non-activity.

The key word for me is "solely" - ie CDA cannot be used just to get rid of an inactive admin. My issues with (1) (and the older versions of it) are the questions it raises:

• When is "recently"?

We cannot have an ambiguous proposal.

• Can an admin hide from a CDA by being inactive?

This is theoretically possible.

• Explicitly disallowing a CDA on an inactive admin raises more questions than it answers, and is not a clause that the proposal expressly needs.

Why raise these questions (the ones above) when we don't have to?

The argument that an admin must be around to defend himself suggests that it is possible that there could eventually be a case to be made for a CDA on an inactive admin. I think this should be dealt with if and when it ever happens. ie there is no reason we should add detail on how to open a CDA on an inactive admin, who cannot even stand in his prior dispute resolution case, let alone a CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The process is already enormously vague on who is supposed to be enforcing all this, so it's not clear that additional vagueness is a particular problem. Who removes CDA's that solely cite non-activity? Who decides whether the additional issues cited are actually valid or just gaming? As to your last question, this is a safeguard against abuse of the process and guard against its abuse. The method of abuse contemplated by this safeguard is the use of CDA to get around the broad community consensus against desysopping for inactivity. If you don't feel that the proposal needs these safeguards, don't include them. Obviously some people may then be less likely to support the proposal, which would be more prone to abuse and gaming. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"The process is already enormously vague on who is supposed to be enforcing all this, so it's not clear that additional vagueness is a particular problem." - Can you clarify that? :)

I don't understand why you think I do not "feel the proposal needs to have these safeguards"? It's full of safeguards - they just have to be unambiguous, or they won't pass go.

The 'usual people' can turn down a CDA proposal created solely to remove admin over inactivity. Whatever is consistant with the rest of the proposal. Gaming etc is judged by the Crats - but is it really an issue here? This answer applies to both (1) and (2) above of course, and info on the 'closer' could be easily added in.

Surely both (1) and (2) guard against people trying to desysop for inactivity? I'm not sure it is a "broad community consensus" to do so, but it doesn't matter - everyone agrees that the CDA process should not be used for to sysop for inactivity. I have to ask the question; would someone really try and 'game' a removal-for-inactivity by making up offenses about an inactive admin to get him in a CDA? Would he get 10 people supporting him (just to begin the process)? Both (1) and (2) above prevent it happening anyway. The question is - which one is better? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So the crats are responsible, for instance, for certifying that the nomination is made for an appropriate reason, that dispute resolution has been attempted, etc.? What if an Arbcom clerk certifies the nomination based on the 3 requirements listed on the page, but a crat disagrees? Would they close the CDA immediately, or wait until the vote was completed and then announce, regardless of the % result, that the nomination failed?

To your second question, there are well over 10 people who feel that inactivity alone is sufficient reason for removal. So why wouldn't such a nomination get 10 supports? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it states clearly in the "What the process is not" section that it isn't allowed! Both (1) and (2) above (whichever is used) make it as clear as a bell!

Your first point about bureaucrats and clerks etc disagreeing with each other is interesting. I can't personally see how they could disagree with anything in an unambiguous proposal. Certainly everything would have to agreed upon to move past the 10 initial signatures onto the Discussion phase. At that point they would decide whether the 'Before nomination' phase was correctly adhered to. If they felt that is wasn't, it would stop at that point. As the long as the guide is clear, the nominators should not need to waste their time. The Before nomination phase is flexible, but it is down to the nominators if they havent judged it right. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris - As noted by Matt above, regardless of option 1 or 2, this isn't a likely concern. 10 people can nominate for this purpose all they want, but it will never make it to polling for two reasons:

1) it's specifically not allowed in the policy, and

2) if they're inactive (whichever definition used), then the admin wouldn't have been around to participate in substantial community discussion at a suitable venue (another prerequisite for a nomination).

As for the options, I favour the second, as the first one is redundant in my opinion because if they haven't used the tools or edited at all recently, then again substantial community discussion at a suitable venue is unlikely to have happened and therefore this process wouldn't be appropriate. Further, as noted by Matt, that definition leaves open what 'recently' means, and all the wikilawyers will go to town poking holes in it. The latter option is much clearer to me, and again the former is rather redundant. NJA (t/c) 10:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a process says something is not allowed doesn't usually stop it from happening if people believe it's in the best interests of the wiki (WP:IAR). Administrators disagree on the certification of RFCs all the time (especially controversial ones), and since the requirements for dispute resolution on dialogue are basically the same, and there are additional potentially controversial points for them to certify including whether the grounds for the CDA are valid, I would expect there to be even more drama over this here. Why do you suppose that "everything would have to be agreed" for the nomination to move on to the voting phase? There's nothing in the proposal to assure this; when someone comes along the nomination and believes it should be certified, they can do so and initiate the poll. What does the person do who comes along later, and believes it shouldn't have been certified? Do they stop the poll and delete any votes that have already been made? Christopher Parham (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot follow what you're saying at all. A read through of the entire policy draft addresses all of this in my opinion. Why would a crat decide on their own accord to go against the policy and certify a nomination where the multiple prerequisites are not met? That is just silly. NJA (t/c) 14:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the crat believes they are met. Another crat might disagree. It happens all the time, with both parties acting in the best of good faith. There are other existing process that require certification that dispute resolution has been attempted. People disagree all the time about whether it has. I don't see why analogous disagreements wouldn't happen here, since the certification requirements are even more subjective (in addition to the validity of attempted dispute resolution, the certifier must determine whether the nature of the dispute itself meets certain requirements). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is a concern you feel strongly about, then I don't see an issue with considering whatever statement or failsafe you'd like inserted to clarify it. However, to me, it's really cut and dry. I may walk outside and be knocked down by an old lady in her car, but I'll still go outside. Anyhow, what do you reckon? NJA (t/c) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and read the two options, and I do not have a strong preference between them. It seems to me that the first one, by requiring that the person not be inactive, has the same effect as the second, in that one cannot remove someone for inactivity if they are not, in fact, inactive. Consequently, I would be content with either one. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The main difference is that the first could be made objective and the second cannot. You could write a bot to remove any CDA nomination made on a nominee who hadn't been active in say, 2 months; you couldn't write a bot to determine reasons. Making the criteria for certification objective and unambiguous removes the potential for drama when people disagree about how the criteria should be applied. And CDA's will be so sufficiently drama-filled already that we want the process to run smoothly. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I like the first. Also, if squabbling between crats is a concern, then possibly require two to certify it. That is, one looks it over and signs it saying they think it's good to go (ie meets all the requisites), then another later does the same thorough assessment (no 'rubber stamping') and then signs it as well. Then it's ready to be opened to polling. Possibly also stipulate that opening of the Cda to polling mustn't be done any earlier than 1 or maybe 2 days from it first being launched. That way if 10 people somehow want to play games and sign it quickly, then there's a forced grace period of a day or two for word to get around about it. Anyhow, overall, I think it's a very picky concern, as things are bound to happen with everything in life, but that little bit of added redundancy should hopefully ease any concern. This could all be done in one or two sentences if drafted well. Cheers for tonight, NJA (t/c) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought it'd be obvious, but I'll be clear. In this setup, should one say it's good to go and the other disagree then obviously a third 'crat would be needed to do a thorough assessment and decide whether the nomination meets the reqs to be certified or not. Not too hard. NJA (t/c) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did something quickly, thus Chris consider: this and this. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why only one arbcom clerk (an unelected position) but two bureaucrats (arugably the most difficult to achieve/respected functionary)? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this turn towards having a more complicated process with multiple Bureaucrats. Remember, this thread started as a discussion about the wording on not using CDA for inactive accounts. It is now spinning out into a whole new layer of "bureaucracy" (pun intended) that really is a solution in search of a problem. In the unlikely event that a nomination is certified and then questions arise that it should not have been, that will come out quickly in the community discussion, and it can just as quickly be brought to the Admin and/or Crat noticeboards. That is what the section on speedy closures is for. This is becoming nonsense. Pick a version for the "inactive accounts" wording, and let's move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just look at WP:RFA, which in some ways (by far, not all) is a mirror of the CDA proposal. One crat is all that's needed for a decision. If a case is close, or controversial, a discussion at WP:BN proceeds. I imagine something similar would occur with CDA. We already have an example of this working, it doesn't seem necessary to reinvent the wheel. -- Atama頭 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no certification needed to start an RFA, so the analogy doesn't hold. Bureaucrats there just fill the function of determining consensus, their normal role. Here they are being asked to make additional judgments and determinations of fact. A better analogy is RFC, where certification along much the same lines as in this proposal, and edit wars/contested deletions/other impropriety is common when certification is disputed among administrators. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Text about nominations (1)

See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#The nominators. The label "needs to be discussed" appears 7 times there. For the first 3 times it appears, my understanding is that it no longer needs to be discussed and the material is to be kept. Objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, no issues from me, except for a comment on the: may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions bit. I am most concerned about the inclusion of community imposed editing restrictions in that list. Basically, if a notification or declaration is made by an uninvolved admin or 'crat that the editor is under a community imposed restriction, then they should be allowed to have their say, with relevance of the restriction against them left up to the community. This is also the reason I oppose limiting their discussion to the talk page only (see next sub-section directly below). NJA (t/c) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff concerned [2] that is referred to under "Question about something MacDui said" which relates to this issue. Ben MacDui 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, here is what I understand. Now that we have cleared up some other questions, the section Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#The nominators contains the phrase "needs to be discussed" twice.

• The second time it appears is at the last paragraph of the section. I think those issues are resolved, and the "needs to be discussed" can just be deleted now.
• The first time it appears is in the part that discusses "not subject to Arbitration enforcement" and so forth. That is where the questions still remain.
  • One option would be to import the language "in which case an uninvolved administrator, on request, shall unblock the editor for the sole purpose of participation in the CDA" from the "Discussion and poll" section below, or language similar to it. (However, I note that the language already allows "the Arbitration Committee or another person or group empowered to lift those restrictions" to let the editor make the nomination, so I'm really not sure that I see any point to this.) A more decisive approach would be to delete the paragraph entirely; I'm not sure the community would be happy with that, for the reasons I state below.
  • The alternative course of action would be to retain the current wording without changing it. I'd like to make a case for the latter. Here, we are talking only about nominators, not everyone who will participate in the poll if the nomination goes forward. My sense of community sentiment over all of the past discussions is that most editors want to put significant barriers between disgruntled trouble-makers and the ability to start a nomination, so I think most of the community wants to lock out such individuals from being among the initial ten who nominate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben MacDui 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is fine with me as well. NJA (t/c) 08:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Text about nominations (2)

See, again, Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#The nominators. The label "needs to be discussed" appears 7 times there. The last 4 times are at a section with three bullet points. My understanding is that this material is to be deleted entirely. Objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No concerns except for one thing: I oppose limiting their discussion to the talk page only. Relevance on their participation and comments (with view of an admin or community imposed block against them) should be determined by the community, as this is a community process. Thus, the decision of what is or is not important should be made by the community as a whole, and not a distinct sub-section of it (i.e. a 'crat). This is something I may note in the RFC. NJA (t/c) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just checking in briefly today after being on the road, and will look more carefully tomorrow, but I do not understand this point. In the passage referenced, where does it say that someone's discussion is limited to the talk page only? I must be missing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Penultimate paragraph of the section, i.e. the 6th bullet point in the section marked as 'needing discussed'). NJA (t/c) 08:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, but that is what I am saying, at the top of this sub-thread, should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Must have missed that in this mess. I am not opposed for that bit to be deleted entirely. NJA (t/c) 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Actually, it is a mess, but your dialog with me has been very helpful in sorting it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed these should go. Ben MacDui 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed 'em. Ben MacDui 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone may participate

See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#Discussion and poll. It says "needs to be discussed" at the beginning of the "Anyone may participate" paragraph. My understanding is that the paragraph is now OK, and the "needs to be discussed" should be deleted. Objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the clarifications on how blocked editors are to go about participating, I am happy with the current wording. NJA (t/c) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Ben MacDui 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there is still a question about the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done No explanation, and no reason, for worrying about the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Language about before nomination

See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#Before nomination, the second paragraph. Then, see #Most recent, above. Personally, I feel very strongly about needing to change the language, for the reasons I stated above. We need to decide this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Other editors: Please see my initial reasoning (and follow-up) for why I felt the previous language was troublesome, particularly for non-US English speakers. NJA (t/c) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the addition of 'needs discussed', and above you note that you feel very strongly about the language, thus I'd like to try to work together to improve it to a satisfactory text. You said that you disagreed that it sounded colloquial, and I think you felt that the old language told editors whom may have come in haste what to expect, i.e. 'that it may backfire spectacularly', etc. While I don't think my language is any less dissuasive, and while I believe it's more understandable to people speaking international English, I'm unopposed to working together towards a revision that would be universally unambiguous and satisfactory to you. An idea may be to combine the two statements and say that the nomination 'will likely fail, and possibly backfire as your conduct will also be called into question'. NJA (t/c) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that proposal is, in its entirety? It sounds like the same language as the version you wrote. I really feel that, to make the changes you are discussing, and that no one else has raised previously, you really need to go back to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1#16. Improve language and provide a refutation to every comment by every editor there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have restored what I am certain was the consensus wording. I appreciate NJA's attention to this paragraph, but I do not think he has made the case to overturn what other editors agreed upon based on a single opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That 'consensus wording', was simply people agreeing that the proposed expansion sounded good, ie it encapsulated what needed done. It doesn't mean it's the best wording available forever, and as there weren't two versions to select from, they simply went with what was provided. As the neutral voter put it, 'no text should be locked in stone'... and authors should 'follow the spirit of the community's desires'. Essentially, we both agree with the intent, but I think there's room for improvement (1 2), and rather than work with me on a compromise, you decided to revert, mark it done and give me a link. I won't fight it for now, but at some point the wording will be discussed, possibly at RfC. I would have preferred to sort this prior to than, as I want to fully support it as is and actively argue for its acceptance, rather then needing to have my own concerns addressed. NJA (t/c) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think it a good thing to move on. We are well beyond the date by which I asked editors to make a good faith effort to resolve remaining questions, and I do not appreciate the extent to which things are being dumped in my lap. I think people are, understandably, getting snippy over what have really become minutiae of the language, and that's a signal that this discussion has gone on too long. As I have told you previously, I appreciate your often very thoughtful and insightful help, and it is not my purpose to disrespect you here. Frankly, I doubt in this case that you will find many editors who see much point in what you raised about this particular issue, but feel free to prove me wrong, since that is how editing works. I told you my concerns, you suggested some sort of "compromise", to which I responded and you, then, did not respond (instead starting a side-track about having multiple crats come in before the polling would even start). I feel very strongly that the community has said that they want strong, not prissy, language in this paragraph, and I'm trying to stand up for that, not to please everyone. It's time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response to my compromise was to have me ask multiple editors whether an improvement to the language was agreeable to them. This isn't normally what's done when there's a proposed change many weeks after someone last saw it. Wikipedia is not a static document, things change daily, and people needn't rubber stamp every edit. 'Consensus' or not, they simply agreed to the only wording option available to them. The intent was not changed by me. I'll move on to the extent that I don't plan to argue with you about it as you clearly didn't really want to compromise on this (possibly a pride issue as you drafted the bit?). Though this will be discussed, unfortunately at RfC, and it's not about proving you wrong, as that doesn't matter to me or should it to anyone, it's about ensuring this policy uses clear and proper language, as is expected in Wikipedia policy. Prissy or not, it must be good and professional writing as viewed by readers of all variations of English. NJA (t/c) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to ask multiple editors. I asked you to read what they already said, and explain why you think they were wrong. My concern is being responsive to the concerns that editors have been raising all along. They have been saying that they are concerned that nominations will be made for bad reasons, and that it would be disruptive. They have not been saying that they are worried that the wording was insufficiently genteel. In any case, it appears that you will now have more time to discuss this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The following is actually not related to this sub-thread, but to two others, below. I will leave it here, but collapse it, and copy it to the appropriate places. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Along with that, I have two other concerns: I still think the bit about 'attempt persuasion' is odd. We said they must attempt DR, but then we switch to attempting 'persuasion', which could be anything? Just say what it is they must do (DR) and not be so vague with the 'persuasion' language. The last two sentences about speedy closes: there's already a sub-section on it. Could we tie them in together so all the info about speedy closures is in one place? Possibly note in the last paragraph that: "repeated unsuccessful nominations may be speedily closed and considered disruption. See this sub-section for details". Then in that sub-section say uninvolved admins and crats may close, etc ? NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreaks

See the question about Wikibreaks under #Other thoughts, above, and the discussion of it that follows a little below. In my opinion, nothing more need be done, but I'm not sure that others agree about that. Any remaining unaddressed concerns? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I'm getting at is it's (likely) inevitable that an admin will realise where it's headed (ie to CDA) and they may conveniently take a wiki-break. If they're de-sysoped, they, and their mates, may then make a big stink about them not being able to offer a defence statement. If a simple statement could be made in the guidance (possibly under the validity section) that validity of the nomination and the polling process will not affected by an administrators' inability to acknowledge or participate in the process. NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I follow what you are saying, but I'm still not sure what to do. Can you suggest specific wording? Also, I think there is another side of the coin: that an administrator may actually be away from Wikipedia for valid and unrelated reasons at the time of a CDA, and be unaware that the process has started, and we should perhaps leave the door open for that fact to come out in the course of the process, and allow the community to decide whether to continue or not. In other words, might this end up being instruction creep? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well being that DR, which is an engaging two way process, must be done and failed prior to a CDA, I don't see why the option should be available. Otherwise you may find a lot of sudden 'real life issues', which cause the admin to be away. I think it might be a question posed at RfC, that is by the time it got to the stage of a CDA, whether admin acknowledgement or participation in it is needed. NJA (t/c) 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To enlarge on what I said above, a Bureaucrat can surely distinguish between a "I will be away for two weeks and will robustly defend myself on my return" and "gone". I agree there is scope for clarification here, but again I wonder if this is simply something that can be ironed out after the fact. We could say that there is a maximum period three weeks or similar, but without any prior community discussion of the issue I am reluctant to tinker with the existing wording. Ben MacDui 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more that I, too, am reluctant to add wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move on from this for now. Though we can say we at least foresaw it happening. NJA (t/c) 08:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Stale" signatures

See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#The nominators, the second bullet point. There have been questions about the sentence "Signatures more than 7 days old are invalid and must be re-signed to be made valid." My understanding is that the sentence is now fixed. Are there still unresolved problems with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My thing is why even bother with all this potentially confusing language, particularly to those who didn't devise it? You mentioned several scenarios above, and I think it's all un-necessary? It should be clear (and I thought it was until I saw the bit on stale signatures), that if they don't meet the requirements by day 7 (ie 10 editors with 3 months and 500 edits), then it's over and they must re-nominate. Why make life more difficult for 'crats to re-certify? It's not difficult for the 10 editors to sign a new nomination. If anything, I'll mention it at the RFC as it's just a complication in my view. NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking carefully about what you said, I see it as having two parts. The first is just that the language continued to be potentially confusing. I looked at the language again, and just made another edit that I think makes it harder to misunderstand [3]. The other part is a substantive one, about seeing it differently in terms of whether to start over entirely, or not. My reading of what I've been hearing from multiple editors is that most want this the way that it is, and that it may just be a concern to you (?). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the "bold" edit by NJA. Maybe it's just to my eyes, but I think it made it worse, less helpful in terms of what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff? Ben MacDui 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes it less clear as it implies there is no escape clause. Actually I prefer the change (made by NJA). The pre-existing langauge could, in theory, have allowed the process to go on for quite some time. Ben MacDui 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were reverted, then I'd be left wondering why a signature made after 7 days would even be considered valid. If you are unaware of the past discussions that shaped the guidance (like me) and you simply read the entire guidance for the first time, it seems clear that you have 7 days to get 10 valid nominators for it to go to poll. However, then you come across this one sentence that speaks of 're-signing' and validity past 7 days, and it does nothing but confuse those unaware of the discussion that lead to the wording. Shouldn't it be that if you don't get 10 valid sigs in 7 days, then too bad, game over and try again? If not, then a lot more than a simple revert would be required to make clear to those reading for the first time what's meant by 're-signing', etc. NJA (t/c) 08:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, on thinking it over and reading the comments here, I'm concluding that this time it's "just me", and not worth worrying about further. I'm OK with the language there now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity on dispute resolution

See [5]. You have to scroll down, a lot, until you get to "I still would ask for more clarity if at all possible..." What, if anything, do we still need to do there? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I still think the bit about 'attempt persuasion' is odd. We said they must attempt DR, but then we switch to attempting 'persuasion', which could be anything? Just say what it is they must do (DR) and not be so vague with the 'persuasion' language. NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted here, my concern is the requirement for DR, then later the use of completely different wording, ie to 'attempt persuasion', without being clear that DR is a pre-requisite. Repetition should generally be avoided, but not when it's used to summarise the actuality of the situation where it's clearly relevant and use to avoid ambiguity. NJA (t/c) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I get it! (Maybe I'm just slow? :-) ) The problem was saying, first, that there must be prior dispute resolution, and, then in this section, that there must be "persuasion". I edited it [6], in hopes of making it more consistent. Did this solve it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ben MacDui 08:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity on speedy closes

In that same diff, scroll down to the next point after the one above: "Clearer, but I still wonder about..." What, if anything, do we still need to do there? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The last two sentences about speedy closes: there's already a sub-section on it. Could we tie them in together so all the info about speedy closures is in one place? Possibly note in the last paragraph that: "repeated unsuccessful nominations may be speedily closed and considered disruption. See this sub-section for details". Then in that sub-section say uninvolved admins and crats may close, etc ? NJA (t/c) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Same diff, essentially there's scattered details and it could all be condensed and clarified. NJA (t/c) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think I get it now. That passage talked about summary closure and described it slightly differently than the main section on speedy closes did. I made this edit [7]. Does that fix it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the further edit by NJA, which is a further improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Ben MacDui 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How to word percentages or whatever

Perhaps the stickiest remaining issue. See Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#Closure, the third paragraph, where it says this needs to be discussed. The last I checked, the most current discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Rational fractions rather than percentages. This is unsettled, and needs to be settled. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. My enthusiastic first choice is this version, by Sswonk. My second choice is this version by me (in both those first two, look for the blockquotes), and my third choice is this version, by Ben MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The points made by Sswonk are excellent and I wish the had been made some weeks ago. My problem with them is that in two separate polls editors were asked to expression an opinion about percentages. Changing the language at this stage is, I believe, unhelpful, even if I might support such a change if the RfC were passed. The language I was using was as close to RfA as possible. If the difference is "approximately' I can live with that. Ben MacDui 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, then, let's go with "approximately" per my "second choice". But I want to make a strong plea that it is not too late to make use of Sswonk's truly insightful version. There is a strong case that it actually is the best reflection of the sense of what editors said in "Vote 2" of the last poll. I'm convinced that such a change would actually be helpful, not unhelpful. Yes, a lot of editors who have participated in past discussions will do a double-take when they first see it. But on reading it again, they will realize that it captures what they were arguing for. And it captures the wishes of more respondents than does any other proposed wording that I've seen. I think it maximized the likelihood of the RfC passing, and I think it's not too late at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously a great deal of time and effort expended here, but I feel the need to say once again, after a deliberate week away, that I'm afraid Cda has drifted way off the original Uncle G proposal of a simple 'Reverse Rfa'. Keep it simple, and Cda may yet have a chance. As soon as you complicate it, consensus will be difficult if not impossible to obtain in an Rfc... at least, in my opinion. Best wishes, Jusdafax 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you there. Ben MacDui 14:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done? I'm not sure. But we need to stop going around in circles, and I'm afraid these most recent comments do not indicate a consensus to go with Sswonk's version. Note that once we changed 70% to 65%, it stopped being the reverse of an RfA. I think there is a sort of compromise consensus to accept "approximately", and we should probably go with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist announcement not done

See Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Need to announce. Need to agree on the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is just one of several publicity routes and I am fairly relaxed about the wording. I'd avoid "deadministratorship" or whatever the word was and use Administrator Recall or similar myself. Ben MacDui 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I've modified the wording accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, as far as agreeing on the wording, just need to actually make the announcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll page format

See Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Concerns about poll format, which degenerates into some off-topic talk, at which point skip down to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#suggested RfC polling page, and Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft Poll Page. We can't go live until we have something to go live to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proposal of some kind to consider? Ben MacDui 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft Poll Page. Please see also the concerns discussed by me and by TenOfAllTrades at the top of Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Concerns about poll format. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We already had a draft page. Now we have the actual page ready to go at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC based on that draft. If we want "support, oppose, neutral" sections that's fine by me. Ben MacDui 08:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This may be a case of crossed signals. I've never understood that the page to which you refer was actually formatted as a place for Support, Oppose, etc. I think we need to merge these, by importing the contents of the pages you list, into the "Discussion" section of the page to which I referred. I will do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the pages. Please make very sure we use the merged one! It will be very embarrassing if we go live with the "wrong" one!! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)