User:NJA/CDA draft RfC

This page reflects my personal views should the draft of Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship go to a request for comment. If you wish to make comments, feel free to do so on the talk page here.

These views are based on an entire reading at 8.00 UTC (29 Jan):

Current concerns

Key

Red - Needs simple clarification, likely without much discussion to remedy. I couldn't support unless clarified.

Orange - Ambiguous and in need of clarification, possibly some discussion needed to remedy. Unlikely to support unless clarified.

Purple - Seems to be completely redundant, or it could be tied into other existing bits of the guidance to avoid confusion. An easy fix, though not serious enough for me to resist the draft if not fixed.

Green - Could use some thought on whether the current wording is clear enough. Not enough of a concern for me to resist the policy.

Wording ambiguities

• Nominator's sub-section:

•  Done "their account must be "more than three months old" - does this mean at least three months old (i.e. 90 days) or (91+ days)? I know to those who drafted this it's clear, but not to me.
• the stale signatures bit - Whilst it's been revised since yesterday, I'm still confused about it. My understanding was that if they don't get 10 sigs by 10 qualified editors within 7 days then it's dead in the water. Thus why this extra language about re-signing? Shouldn't they simply to do the nomination all over again should they find the one or two editors they needed, whether it's a few days or few weeks later? If not, then it should be clarified, as again, this is not currently straight forward except maybe to those who drafted the provision.

•  Done the related processes section - I slightly see a reason to list RFA (even though I think it's redundant here as it's linked to and mentioned twice, i.e. once in 'what this process is' and also 'appeal'). However what does bot right approvals have to do with anything? I'd personally remove the section.

• the 'before nominations section':

• 1st para: It says in the last sentence of the 1st paragrapgh that 'you should attempt persuasion', however it's said in this section under the heading "Dispute resolution or other discussions" that substantial DR must have taken place. Thus the statements do not match up. I'd remove the persuasion bit and make clear that other DR processes must have taken place. It's completely confusing and slightly contradicting as is.
• Last para: The last two sentences about speedy closes: who does it? How does this bit on speedy closes tie in with this section dedicated to speedy closure?

Things marked as needing discussed by others

Listed by order they appear in the guidance (note that I skipped over some as I don't have comments on them):

Inactive admins

I think it's fine as is. If they're inactive, then so what? This process is to address wayward admins who the community is feed up with, not admins who aren't editing.

Nominators Not subject to ArbCom or other restrictions

I think it could be revised. While, we shouldn't step on Arb's toes (thus leave that bit as is), for community restrictions we should allow people to go ahead, since it's the community placed and oversees these restrictions. If a statement is made in the nomination or poll by an uninvolved admin or crat that the editor is under such restrictions, then it's up to the community at large to weigh the evidence. We shouldn't make this a closed process.

Clarification: I am most concerned about community imposed sanctions. If a notification or declaration is made that they're under such restrictions, it should be up to the community to weigh the relevance it bears on the nomination, not a admin or 'crat. Same thing goes for limiting their discussion to the talk page, relevance should be determined by the community as this is a community process and a community imposed restriction, and the decision shouldn't be made by a distinct sub-section of the editing community. This might be something to note in the RFC.

Blocked editors

• In reference to them as nominators: I'm glad the current wording is clearer than yesterday, as it sounded as if blocked editors should somehow evade their blocks. We may wish to clarify that they may be unblocked at uninvolved admin discretion to take part in discussion. I'm unsure if limiting their participation to the talk page of CDA only is fair or needed.
•  Done Allowed to participation in discussion! (under the 'discussion sub-section') -- This is why clarifications are needed. In the sub-section, a provision is made for blocked editors to discuss in the CDA if the admin blocked them or it's related, etc. However it's not clear how this will happen. We don't want blocked editors reading this and then evading their block to discuss, as they'll get in more trouble. Clarity is key, i.e. blocked editors who believed they're affected by the CDA should request an unblock in the usual way making clear they wish to participate in the CDA. That way an admin can unblock with the condition they only discuss in the CDA.

Consensus figure

What do you propose? It's not really up to us, it's up to the crat anyhow.

Admins who go on Wiki-break?

Unresolved

 – Being discussed on the talk page.

Not discussed in the draft, but I foresee it happening -- what about admins who decide to go on wiki-break after they realise it's heading towards a CDA? Essentially it doesn't run foul of the current 'validity' section found in the guidance, but would there be a way to make it clearer, i.e. since it's a community process admins who have decided to take a wiki-break and not offer a statement in their defence do so at their own risk? I'd just hate to see the inevitable passing of a CDA, only to have the admin and his mates claim it was an unfair process as he went on break right before the CDA and wasn't able to make a statement in his own defence.

Other thoughts

Potential deal breakers for me

Editors of good standing

Resolved

 – Seems unlikely to be re-added at this stage

Whilst it wasn't present in my reading at 8.00 UTC on 29 Jan, there has been a push to include this provision.

Along with Brad's concerns about it, I feel it would make the process overly reclusive. The bar is already high enough, i.e. 10 editors, who need to be active, who have had three months registration, and 500 edits each. There is no reason to cloud up the guidance with a ridiculous 'good standing' clause, which means we need to add more ambiguous language on what exactly that means. Are we really trying to prevent the unlikely situation that 10 'bad' editors, somehow met all the requirements and got the nomination to a poll? Even then, they'd still need 50 !votes, with approx. 65% supporting removal of rights. Let's not forget the fact that there's also 'crat discretion (should there be any funny business), and the policy of WP:CANVASS. Thus, leave out this mess.