The results of the poll were:
No | Name | Support | Oppose | Neutral | Majority | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | The status quo | 13 | 44 | (-31) | 23% | |
1 | Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship | 8 | 21 | 1 | (-13) | 28% |
2 | User:Tony1/AdminReview | 10 | 20 | (-10) | 33% | |
3 | Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin RFC draft | 15 | 18 | 1 | (-3) | 45% |
4 | Wikipedia:Community de-adminship | 26 | 13 | 1 | 13 | 67% |
5 | Wikipedia:Declaration of no confidence | 5 | 16 | 2 | (-11) | 24% |
6 | Make CAT:AOTR mandatory | 1 | 27 | (-26) | 4% | |
7 | User:Sandstein/Reconfirmation RFA | 6 | 22 | (-16) | 21% | |
8 | Straightforward reconfirmation | 9 | 18 | 2 | (-9) | 33% |
9 | Admin reconfirmation | 5 | 7 | 2 | (-2) | 42% |
10 | User:Tim Smith/Administrator-initiated recall | 4 | 14 | (-10) | 22% | |
11 | AdminRFC+RFA | 5 | 6 | 2 | (-1) | 45% |
12 | Reconfirmation initiated by the Arbitration Committee | 5 | 10 | 3 | (-5) | 33% |
13 | Signatures prompt RFA + extra safeguards | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 50% |
14 | Regular recall schedule | 1 | 2 | 4 | (-1) | 33% |
This is summary of the results of main questions posed.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Existing wording: Editors in good standing:
Proposal 2.1 Replace/Add current definition with... "Except where such sanctions were enacted (or were caused to be enacted) by the admin being subject to this process, and the editor is otherwise in good standing".
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal 2.2 Change second bullet point from 500 edits to 150 edits.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal 2.3 For clarity, proposed wording - "Nomination by the Community at large may be initiated by any registered user, though requires the signed support of no fewer than 9 editors in good standing"
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Existing wording:
and
Poll finding
Proposal 3.1 Change 3 days to 7 days.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposal 3.2 Modify the second bullet point about publicity.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Existing wording
Result at time/date of this edit
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: Given how central this issue is to the proposal, this section will not be archived until the period for commenting has ended.
Existing wording
Poll finding Some editors were not clear if this meant that an existing Administrator needed to:
Possible options There are presently four options: 5.1 would require 70% to desysop. 5.2 would require 70% to retain administrator status. 5.3 would require majority sentiment to desysop. 5.4 would require consensus to desysop.
5.1 Add to the current wording:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5.2 Add to the current wording:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5.3 Add to the current wording:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5.4 Add to the current wording:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Plus discussion of "WARNING NOTE" (parts of which only follow)
Numeric/percentage based systems are game-able/can be gamed/have been gamed in the past.
A numeric-based system for de-adminship, in combination with the current percentage-based requests for adminship opens a potential exploit:
A sufficiently well informed and motivated party (be it for the lulz, or for more serious reasons), would be able to perform a hostile takeover of Wikipedia, at least temporarily. As follows:
--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Result of discussion at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 09:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A general comment and specific wordings may not apply. Poll finding: Some editors believed that Administrators would find the system too easy to beat, even if there was widespread opposition to their continuing in the role, while others felt that it would be too easy to bring frivolous charges against good Administrators.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui
8.1 Replace current wording with... An admin may be desysopped indefinitely, and may only regain the flags by making a new Request for Adminship, or for a period to be determined during the process, of not more than one year. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
8.2 Instead, allow for more discussion and not simple bulleted !votes. Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Current wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors:...
Proposed wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors: ... should not be nominating in a manner which is or appears to be related to a content dispute. Editors which have had recent or well-known content disputes related to the administrator are strongly encouraged to act as if they are ineligible to nominate.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Current wording:
Proposed wording:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposed wording: Current wording: Where nomination is made by editors in good standing, those editors:...
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Current wording: None.
Proposed wording: This process may not be initiated while the administrator is the subject of an arbitration case concerning the use of his or her administrative tools, or while such a case is pending acceptance by the arbitration committee. If this process is already underway, it is strongly encouraged that anyone considering filing such an arbitration case refrain from doing so until this process is concluded.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above.
Current wording: none.
Proposed wording: This process may not be restarted against an admin who fails to be de-sysoped by the community for a period of three months. However, Arbcom may recommend a new process within 3 months of a failed de-adminship.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposals to allow 'crats to desysop users through Special:UserRights have been rejected in the past due to lack of a community desysoping process. If we go forward with this I think that including a request from the community to the devs to allow this would make a lot more sense. If the 'crat is making the decision there isn't really any reason not to allow them to implement it. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Result of discussion at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Violation of rules result in desysop if admin is stubborn and refuses to admit breaking the rule and does it multiple times Proposal: If an administrator violates a rule, they will be desysoped ONLY if they don't have a reasonable excuse that has widespread support and violates a rule in a way that doesn't actually concretely improves Wikipedia (if they do, they can invoke the IAR (ignore all rules). Such clear rule may eliminate the contentious desysop process. There will be some leniency, such as breaking a rule AND refusal to correct the mistake when notified is permitted a maximum of once every calender year.
Result at time of this edit.
Details archived per the above. Ben MacDui 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
15.1 Add the following sentence: "Parties to the CDA process may legitimately contact other editors to provide input, but must at all times do so in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS."
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
16.1 In light of discussion that keeps coming up here about concerns that the process can be "gamed", I suggest expanding some passages in the current draft proposal, by adding some text that was well-received in this proposal written by Beeblebrox. The existing text is in regular font, and the suggested additions are in green.
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
16.1.5 Prior discussion
I regard the following as a friendly amendment to the above:
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
16.1.6 Multiple resubmissions
I would like to see wording at the end of the notice along the lines of:
Wording, of course, is open to suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Result at date/time of this edit:
Details archived per above. Ben MacDui 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
A "Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll" was conducted between 15th and 24th January 2010., with four question being asked.
Do you prefer a 'baseline' percentage of; 50%, 60%, 66%, 70% or 75%?
Voting result:
Most contributors gave a "second choice" !vote. Whilst different in detail, the results had a similar spread to the above, with the second-choice percentage of both the lower and higher "extremes" gravitating towards the mid-to-upper 60s.
Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
Voting results:
Would you support a two-phase poll at RfC?
Result: Overwhelming opposition to a two-stage process.
If you wish to voice your opinion here by voting "Oppose" to CDA in general, you may do so, but it will not be binding.
Result: A number of people oppose the CDA concept.
A variety of possible interpretations and conclusions resulting from the above expressions of opinion were discussed at WT:CDADR. Ben MacDui 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Revised Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)