181:
32:
719:
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
419:
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 -
160:
555:
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.
576:
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.
599:
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. --
437:
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:
420:
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.
304:
505:
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
295:
224:
219:
214:
207:
202:
197:
105:
117:
518:
271:' 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.
470:
392:
148:
100:
712:
685:
443:
287:
112:
398:
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".
448:
86:
682:
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).
143:
730:
453:
373:
81:
55:
572:
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
679:
372:
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
691:
541:
489:
409:
387:
136:
348:
3. Threshold - would it make de-Admin more likely? would it change the type of actions that would lead to de-Adminship?
527:
257:
281:
the place to discuss either amendments to the existing CDA process, or to pass comments on its merits or problems:
39:
339:
Creating and expanding a section which compares CDA with ArbCom de-Admin and really answers the question "Why?":
236:
675:
351:
4. Community vs
Heirarchy - would it disrupt the so called "power structure" in WP? Would this be a good thing?
131:
376:. I'd like to complete a quick analysis of the answers to Proposal 5 first - should get to that tomorrow.
698:
604:
582:
561:
536:
514:
484:
466:
425:
404:
382:
776:
page before Jan 9th 2010 (the date the changes suggested in the 'revision polls' began to be made).
242:
608:
586:
565:
546:
494:
429:
414:
595:
serve a very good purpose during the final community process and should be included. People
240:
238:
180:
31:
600:
578:
557:
531:
510:
479:
462:
421:
399:
377:
345:
2. Throughput - would it relieve the strain on ArbCom? Is ArbCom struggling at the moment?
268:
773:
365:
Deciding which issues (if any) will be left open for further discussion during the RFC
17:
509:
while the community is, for the most part, reading them for the first time? --
461:
Did I miss anything? Just trying to keep us all on the same page (pages!). --
311:
354:
5. Involvement - would it increase the retention of non-admin contributors
526:
I agree this could be useful, although I am not sure how it squares with
694:
is described as a "process" and is not listed as a policy or guideline.
738:
Done - although if CDA is enacted this would ideally become a template.
649:
Amend the
Knowledge:Guide to Community de-adminship as appropriate.
312:'To do list' moved from draft RfC page, to be merged into here
243:
174:
26:
697:
This suggests that in addition to any useful background per
715:, which will be described as a "guide to current practice".
478:
They are mentioned in the draft RFC on the project page.
769:
671:
Summary of
Summary at WT:CDADR for "Background" section
285:
The CDA proposal itself (which this page discusses) is
156:
62:
708:
Amend WP:CDA so that it states that it is a "process"
640:
Analyse the draft RfC and produce a table of results.
305:Knowledge:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall
70:
51:
688:is described as a "guide to current practice".
368:Publicity on posting RfC per the above section.
296:Knowledge talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
705:Amend the policy Knowledge:Administrators.....
701:the RfC should state that the proposal is to:
320:Transfer summary to WT:CDA for implementation
251:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
342:1. Speed - would CDA be quicker than ArbCom?
293:To discuss the CDA in broader terms, go to:
330:Summary of Summary for "Background" section
667:Figure out what the RfC needs to include.
621:
155:
713:Knowledge:Guide to Community de-adminship
686:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
444:Knowledge:Guide to Community de-adminship
449:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/Example
624:
261:when more than 3 sections are present.
45:Do not edit the contents of this page.
645:Draw conclusions about those results.
144:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard
7:
731:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/FAQ
591:OK, I just read the FAQ. I think it
454:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/FAQ
374:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/FAQ
336:Creating FAQ inc (from discussion):
720:further discussion during the RFC.
616:
25:
255:may be automatically archived by
748:Agree "going live" date for RfC.
692:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
663:Process 2: RfC - what to include
634:Process 1: Analysis of Draft RfC
179:
30:
307:and the archives of this page.
1:
303:For history and context, see
609:20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
587:23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
566:23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
547:09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
519:22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
495:09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
471:22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
430:22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
617:Older 'To Do' for this page
415:11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
393:19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
113:Draft Guide to De-Adminship
791:
711:Implement WP:CDA via the
154:
123:
92:
73:
676:Knowledge:Administrators
656:First attempt completed.
132:Knowledge:Administrators
736:Add it to WP:CDA NavBox
724:Process 3: Complete FAQ
729:Under construction at
317:Complete above summary
258:Lowercase sigmabot III
94:Community de-adminship
43:of past discussions.
323:Prepare the RfC by:
75:General information
333:Decide on end date
267:This page is for '
18:Knowledge talk:CDA
760:
759:
743:Process 4: Timing
528:Protection policy
265:
264:
230:
229:
171:
170:
167:
166:
163:
82:Main project page
50:
49:
16:(Redirected from
782:
622:
544:
539:
534:
492:
487:
482:
412:
407:
402:
390:
385:
380:
260:
244:
194:
193:
183:
175:
101:WP:CDA draft RfC
71:
52:
34:
27:
21:
790:
789:
785:
784:
783:
781:
780:
779:
772:is a 'diff' of
766:
761:
745:
726:
665:
636:
627:
619:
542:
537:
532:
490:
485:
480:
410:
405:
400:
388:
383:
378:
314:
269:meta-discussion
256:
245:
239:
188:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
788:
786:
778:
777:
765:
762:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:Post Publicity
752:
749:
744:
741:
740:
739:
733:
725:
722:
717:
716:
709:
706:
673:
672:
664:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
651:
650:
647:
642:
635:
632:
629:
628:
625:
620:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
569:
568:
552:
551:
550:
549:
500:
499:
498:
497:
459:
458:
457:
456:
451:
446:
435:
434:
433:
432:
370:
369:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
334:
331:
325:
324:
321:
318:
313:
310:
309:
308:
300:
299:
291:
263:
262:
250:
247:
246:
241:
237:
235:
232:
231:
228:
227:
222:
217:
211:
210:
205:
200:
190:
189:
184:
178:
169:
168:
165:
164:
152:
151:
146:
140:
139:
134:
128:
127:
121:
120:
115:
109:
108:
103:
97:
96:
90:
89:
84:
78:
77:
67:
66:
60:
57:
48:
47:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
787:
775:
771:
768:
767:
764:Pre-poll diff
763:
753:
750:
747:
746:
742:
737:
734:
732:
728:
727:
723:
721:
714:
710:
707:
704:
703:
702:
700:
695:
693:
689:
687:
683:
681:
677:
670:
669:
668:
662:
655:
654:
653:
652:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
637:
633:
631:
630:
623:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
548:
545:
540:
535:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
496:
493:
488:
483:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
413:
408:
403:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
386:
381:
375:
367:
364:
363:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
340:
338:
337:
335:
332:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
319:
316:
315:
306:
302:
301:
298:
297:
292:
290:
289:
284:
283:
282:
280:
276:
272:
270:
259:
254:
249:
248:
234:
233:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
212:
209:
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
195:
192:
191:
187:
182:
177:
176:
173:
162:
158:
153:
150:
147:
145:
142:
141:
138:
135:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:Related Pages
122:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
95:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
76:
72:
69:
68:
64:
59:
58:Administrator
54:
53:
46:
42:
41:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
735:
718:
696:
690:
684:
674:
666:
644:
639:
596:
592:
573:
506:
502:
501:
460:
436:
371:
294:
286:
278:
274:
273:
266:
252:
185:
172:
124:
93:
74:
44:
38:
503:Suggestion:
56:WikiProject
37:This is an
601:Tryptofish
579:Tryptofish
558:Matt Lewis
511:Tryptofish
463:Tryptofish
422:Matt Lewis
225:Archive 6
220:Archive 5
215:Archive 4
208:Archive 3
203:Archive 2
198:Archive 1
751:Post RfC
699:WT:CDADR
277:This is
186:Archives
63:subpages
253:14 days
161:changes
40:archive
680:policy
507:ad hoc
774:Guide
678:is a
626:To do
574:troll
275:NOTE:
770:This
605:talk
597:will
593:will
583:talk
562:talk
515:talk
467:talk
426:talk
288:here
157:edit
149:talk
137:talk
118:talk
106:talk
87:talk
543:Dui
538:Mac
533:Ben
491:Dui
486:Mac
481:Ben
411:Dui
406:Mac
401:Ben
389:Dui
384:Mac
379:Ben
279:NOT
607:)
585:)
577:--
564:)
530:.
517:)
469:)
428:)
159:·
65:)
603:(
581:(
560:(
513:(
465:(
424:(
61:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
