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 do list' moved from draft RfC page, to be merged into here
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
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.
BenMacDui 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)reply
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".
BenMacDui 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
They are mentioned in the draft RFC on the project page.
BenMacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I agree this could be useful, although I am not sure how it squares with
Protection policy.
BenMacDui 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 troll ask 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)reply
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)reply
Older 'To Do' for this page
To do
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.
First attempt completed.
Process 2: RfC - what to include
Figure out what the RfC needs to include.
Summary of Summary at WT:CDADR for "Background" section
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).
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.