---

• Ben MacDui (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

I have reverted an attempt by Ben MacDui to start a RFC at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. I have said why I think it is too early, but have not been listened to.

Since early Jan, the admin Ben MacDui has (along with a couple of editors) been focused on starting an WP:RfC on Community de-Adminship WP:CDA as soon as possible. This is just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Despite constant protests from others, the intent at no point diminished. There was absolutely no consensus (or good reason either) to rush into any kind of Rfc. CDA as a form of Admin Recall did not have strong enough initial support to rush into anything, nor was it anywhere near 'the finished article' (it still not there yet).

The rushing over last couple of days has imo been an abuse to those such as myself who are still working on it. The current version has elements that do mot meet consensus at all (this is provable with figures - ie "80%" polled about 38% support in a very large poll, and the new figure is still being debated, so how can anyone justify running with 80%?).

Generally, since early Jan, all critics of CDA have been largely disregarded in the 'Big Push'. Generally I've defended people who are 'pro' this proposal from some strong critics, but I've had enough now. I'm personally still working hard on it (and others are too) and we are just being ignored. The rationale is "look - let's just the community decide now", but abiding by consensus is a hundred times more important than Wikipedia having a CDA. Only a professional and watertight proposal will hava a chance anyway - disharmony and non-consensus elements will be easily dismantled. That is my rationale for not rushing into the RfC. People are entitled to work at making a finished product, and I know i am personally backed by people who want me to help facilitate that (we all of us have our silent support). There is no consensus just to get out "the idea" and see how it rolls. People like myself are not stonewalling. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For Ben MacDui (and the small group who always support each other) to listen and be patient. To understand that consensus is not a tight group of 2 or 3 people. To realise that silence does not equal acceptance of anything. To understand that other people working on CDA want to make it a finished product, and not put it out as "an idea". It has to be a fish or a fowl (ie a solid proposal or a floated idea - right now it is both). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read comments above and below.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. "for better or worse" comment immediately after proof of no consensus (by another admin).
2. Undoing (without an edit note) my revert on the RfC.
3. MacDui justifying the move from finishing the CDA proposal, to essentially floating the idea to the community. Also it shows that he's not been following all the debate lately (invitation to do so or no). This will mean he is simply not seeing a lot of criticism.
4. an early example of seeing CDA as being "nearly there" when it wasn't just far from it at that stage, but the consensus of Jan 4th was for more debate - nothing had been acheived since then and the 17th Jan

There are a number of diffs of MacDui saying (or agreeing to) "we are not far off now" etc. I've never seen it as a fair (or realistic) comment at any point, and have always objected to it. It has not been in the spirit of Wikipedia, and created a huge schism between a number of people who feel they have been unfairly ostracised from the Admin Recall process. For anyone who is interested, I wrote a brief history of CDA's development here.

1. Another comment from 12 days ago suggesting CDA is a done deal now]. Commenting on the "weariness" of people wanting a CDA to be proposed shows the wrong attitude imo. CDA needed and needs a lot of discussion. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CONSENSUS
2. WP:POV
3. WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTAFLIPPINGRUSH

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. one of the first times I raised concerns, which stood even though regardless of my following appeasing comment (please read both comments in diff)
2. OK, temper gone - but I can't say more than that I'm prepared to revert the Rfc. I would not have normally edited at 1am on a sunday morning - but the clear rush to rfc forced me to do it..

I have better diffs elsewhere where I have expressed my feelings (and other people too) about the lack on consensus, and the feeling of railraoding, but I cannot prove MacDui has read them. He knew my feelings all the while though. I personally think that anyone prepared to push the button should have followed all the debate.

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. This edit-note also shows the shift to 'community vote above talk page consensus'; "Where is the consensus to start the WP:CDA rfc now?: it is the consensus of the community that will make the difference". Basically, I feel MacDui is personally happy with the CDA as it stands - I challenge that he would be so keen to run it if he wasn't. For me this contavenes WP:POV.
2. concerned comments of last night and this morning - tempers clearly fraying.

Basically, I've always been 'in the middle' on CDA, addressing some seriously vocal critics of Cda (saying they are being listened to), and trying to slow down a small group of (until just recently on a couple of matters) non-listening proponents. It's been an ongoing thing, and yes - it is my view that CDA is not ready for RfC yet. It's not been an inviting process for others to get invloved in, and I've tried my personal best to 'open up' what was a very closed shop imo.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I come here as someone who is very much involved, very much in the middle of the dispute. This RfC/U should be closed. The complainant has actually been disruptive in ways MacDui has never been (a typical recent diff, there are many more:[1]), and is using this RfC in lieu of resolving the dispute in the normal way. MacDui has been and is engaging with the complainant (which appears to be the desired outcome), and there is nothing constructive to be accomplished here.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: My only disruption is to have constantly asked you to open up and listen to people, while at the same time actually defending your single-minded behaviour to those who are slamming CDA as a bad idea and absolutely insisting that you and MacDui (and one other) have not listened to them. I've taken a lot of flak, that though aimed at me at times for opening CDA wider (ie rather than help close it down as some want), was actually not brought on by me at all. I am discussing with MacDui now on whether to carry this rfc/u on, or to have a fresh start with the proviso that this CDA proposal is done when it is done. We will all know when that position is reached. We have serious outstanding issues at the moment, which we had for a while too. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)