Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/FAQ

I hope a semi-intelligent start, although obviously very unpolished at present. Pls feel free to pitch in with constructive additions. Comments/questions:

Should items that include quotes be attributed to the original author? It seems polite but might also be a distraction and could cause controversy (either way)?

The numbering system stops at 10 as the order will doubtless be changed and I'm not aware of an intelligent automatic enumeration system.

Must dash. Ben MacDui 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest stopping with the first number 10, and deleting all the 10s that follow. I think that the first 10 questions do a good job of answering questions that can be expected, whereas I think the later ones are less needed, and risk raising unnecessary concerns among those who are new to the debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet

I'm not a huge fan of FAQs (I think everything should be clear and readable anyway), but as there is consensus for one, I'll do some work in this. It does strike me as a lot of extra work though, to get it right. My initial thoughts are that we cannot mislead readers in anyway, which is always the danger when simplifying things in something that is limited in scope. It also has to do its job, and not frustrate people like FAQs often do - that would leave a negative feeling about CDA, rather than a positive one.

General thoughts:

• The FAQ can't be controversial, or offer incomplete appraisals in any way, as this can't be a place for debate.
• This could actually be completed as people ask questions, rather than try to pre-empt them.
• As there is so much to read anyway, it would naturally benefit from being shorter rather than longer.
• The FAQ shouldn't try to be (or look like) an alternative to reading the main stuff.
• It shouldn't be a place for additional useful information (people might never read it), and should really only offer questions that are likely to be 'frequently asked' (as this is what people will expect to be in it).

Specific thoughts:

• CDA doesn't have to be 'needed' to be implemented - Wikipedia has a right to evolve. "Are there any problems.." would be better than "What is the problem..".

I've put a few extra points in Q2 (the "solving a problem?" section) to try and make it cover all the aspects. As a rule (and needless to say I'm sure) we can discuss things in here before removing/radically changing exisiting edits. Sometimes its just a matter of honing/phrasing etc. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to address an 'edit note', I wasn't trying to suggest that Arbcom desysop over 'content disputes', but they do use "this is a content issue" as a reason not to get involved in things, as 'content' is supposed to be out of their remit. Theoretically, the community can eventually lose trust in an admin who constantly abuses the position of neutrality as an editor (and thus is not worthy of being an admin). That's all I was trying to say, but its not a crucial point. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:23 pm, Today (UTC+0)

I hope you don't mind that I didn't discuss here, because I think we really were not far apart on any of that, and it was easier just to edit together. I have bigger questions about the deletions, below, but I'm fine with what we honed in on above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

deleting non-essential FAQs

I deleted these five, which currently makes it 13. I think around 12 is fine. The two 'Controversal issue' questions (perhaps best given as one) may/may not be useful somebody - but do we have the time to do all this? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My take: I would bring the former numbers 7, 8, and 9 (now 13, 14, and 15) back. I say that because the opposers will predictably say "why don't you acknowledge these things", and the answers are reassuring. Plus it's very reasonable to credit Uncle G, who really did write the basis of the whole thing (and no downside to the brief credit). I feel kind of neutrally about the new 9, because I think it seems like detail that most users won't care much about. I strongly oppose the new 11, on the grounds that it draws needless attention to what might go wrong. I mildly oppose the new 8, 10, and 12, on the grounds that they are needless excess information, and it's best to keep things simple; also, they tend to speculate on the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So far so good folks. I think it would be useful to specifically invite a few critics of the whole idea to take a look at it. Of course this might result in yet more complex and controversial dialogue, but I'd rather get that out of the way in advance and present a genuinely balanced set of Q&As. Ben MacDui 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly "be bold"! OK by me. I'd certainly like some more eyes on it. My suggestion would be to invite editors who oppose, but who are not necessarily the most disruptive/complaining in their opposition, although I'm not sure who to name or not name in that regard, just thinking that might be more constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed 10 - it's interesting stuff but too abstract for this purpose I think. Also 9 - it is not really relevant at least in its current form. 12 is aimed at relative newcomers. - its short and I think OK. I hear what you say about 11, but isn't the purpose of an FAQ to answer a question someone might reasonably ask (rather than avoid doing so)? Where else is 8 explained or referred to? Ben MacDui 17:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering my last Q it could probably be merged with 2. I'll have a go. Ben MacDui 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've reordered and renumbered it and made a few more tweaks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

changes 24th Jan

I've been developing a few changes, and I made them in one 'go' in the end, as the page lacks sections, and it was to awkwards to get them in one by one. This is the [diff] of the changes.

The changes involve a new section on criticisms, more points added to the "Is CDA is trying to resolve any existing problems?" section, and a section of Safeguards.

Sections would actually give people a contents, which would be useful in a FAQ of course.Matt Lewis (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could explain the logic behind these very extensive changes, as it is extremely awkward to have to look at them all in one go. Ben MacDui 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, with only one section to the entire page, it turned out to be impossible any other way (I did try). You'll have to read it all through, and edit where you see fit. We simply have to start putting in proper sections - its extremely awkward to edit without them!. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 9

Editors bringing a CDA will be subject to intense scrutiny, but CDA itself is designed to have a clear outcome. Is there a clear outcome intended for those editors that are under intense scrutiny? In other words, how does "intense scrutiny" in any way prevent the process from being abused, since there are no sanctions for the abuse?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 13:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is language about repeat nominations. Aren't the possible forms of abuse already covered by existing policies and guidelines? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One abusive nomination can be enough, and since this policy doesn't have a specific consequence for that sort of behavior it would likely move to a request for comment, possibly followed by ArbCom action, I should think. I was trying to clarify whether or not the process can react quickly to that sort of possibility, and I don't think it can. Thank you!--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the Criticisms section

I always stated clearly that I intended to replace the Criticism section when I had time. We were at one point in the middle of developing a CDA proposal! Just because I became critical of CDA (and stopped developing the proposal itself) does not mean I have less value as a contributor in general, or that I 'backed out of the proposal' wholesale - I did not. Criticism is supposed to be allowed (oh the irony). I simply stopped supporting CDA as a viable option for Wikipedia, nothing else. I expect the Criticisms section to stay, especially if this is called a Frequently Asked Questions. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes at FAQ

I don't know what the FAQ was at the momment polling began on the RfC. But, it shouldn't be altered, now that the polling has begun (spelling corrections are the exception). GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I always said that I intend replace the Criticisms section before the RfC starts - but the RfC was simply started. It is against Wikipedia policy to forbid me to do it now, due to frankly made-up rules. People cannot just accept my early positive edits (which have been referenced a lot at the RfC I notice), but revert all my critical ones! (either from when I was as a supporter of CDA, or now that I've found CDA to be no-longer viable).

This is a Frequently Asked Questions (ie it is supposed to address the questions that are raised!), not a manifesto by the Support Party. And to call it a "FAQ" is misleading too, whatever the caveats in place say. It needs a "What Criticism have been expressed?" section - and now it has got one again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's my recommendation that there be no changes during Polling. Obviously, I don't have the final say on it. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Matt, it has every bit of appearance that, just because you got into a fight while working on the proposal, you are now trying your hardest to sabotage it out of sour grapes. Give it a rest - your behavior is neither mature nor helpful. >Radiant< 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a Catch 22 for me isn't it. I could say that your comment is 'sour grapes', because I followed my conscience when I saw that CDA was fundamentally flawed (ie because I essentially 'changes sides' - though in reality I was always more in the middle). I put an 'Are there any Criticisms of CDA?' section into the FAQ a while ago (it was removed for the worst kind of reasons), and whenever people criticised the FAQ for being biased (and periodically too), I said clearly that I was planning to replace it before the RfC, after various other more-pressing work was done. The eventual RfC had no warning or start date - it was just made (partly to avoid me doing this kind of thing I would guess).

I didn't appreciate your edit note by the way. But if I have to be called "immature" for doing what is only right and fair, then I find it a cheap shot, but so be it. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not care what Matt's motives are. My concern is that, simply, it is unfair for someone who now openly wants the proposal to be rejected, to modify this page while the poll is in progress, whereas it would be entirely appropriate to put criticisms of the proposal at the Discussion section of the poll page, which was set up expressly for that purpose. It seems to me that, as of this time, several editors have stated both here and at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Expression of concern that they disagree with the changes Matt has made, not on the merits, but just as a matter of procedure. I'm still waiting to be sure what consensus is on this question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thnk only GoodDay agreed that the FAQ page could no longer be altered (apart from for spellings), and it's my guess is that he'll accept your 'open-archive' solution. TenOfAllTrades just took his oportunity to have a pop, which we've both seen far too much of already. But we have a solution now, no? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What's an open archive? GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Open archives are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)