Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2008-02-06

Opening Comments

"Sysops are expected to generally adhere to policy; however, keeping in mind that the role of sysops is to do what is best for the Wiki, reasonable discretion on the part of the Sysops is allowed as necessary. While they may be limited by policy, their powers are not limited to those expressly granted by policy."

Slippery slope in my opinion that will always lead to madness and headaches, people wont know which way is up and which way is down because its way too vague and arbitrary. There is a reason why policy exists, and there is a reason why it can be ammended. The only reason to give admins ability beyond policy is because the policies are made in a foolish way and people are too lazy to change them. And if they are too lazy to change them, or if there isnt enough support for the change, it shouldn't be acted on in the first place. Wikis are not a new thing, I doubt there are that many oddball situations that have not been encountered before by some wiki if not these. So why is there a need to make a stupid incomplete policy? People should know what works and what doesnt by now, and thus no need for extended and subjective powers for the admins.--riceball 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikis are, actually, relatively new, and there are plenty of new situations that arise (especially when people look for ways around what is written in the policies). -- Armond Warblade 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to just say that I think this is a welcome change and I'd like to see this implemented. There is enough scrambling around policies by quoting literally from one, and getting away with it because ADMIN is then quoted literally as being unable to do anything about it. Some people seem to ignore the "discretion" clause and I think this expands on the one word mention of discretion. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brains. This change isn't about sysops ignoring policy, it's about not being thwarted by your own rules when something needs to be done. Trolls find the holes and if sysops can't move to close that off quickly at the source (because lets face it I've never seen a change to policy which takes less than a month) the whole wiki and the sysops are weakened by it.

While I think that sysops have always had that power and the ADMIN has always had words to that effect being more explicit about it doesn't hurt. --Aspectacle 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. I like it too. It's too easy to get away with something just cause it isn't specifically noted by the letter in one of the policies. Sysops need to be able to act in cases that aren't accounted for in policies. — Galil 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

iawtcs. Thumbs up from me. This small change can uncastrate the sysop role without completely changing the adminship model. It's a good compromise, adding in a bit of flexibility while still retaining the gww ideal. - BeX 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Haven't you been following DE's comments? This is not about fixing some small loophole. Backsword 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee well I'm sorry that I have my own opinion. Seeing things from this side of the fence means that I have a very different perception of the situation to you. I don't ascribe to anyone else's view of the situation, just my own. - BeX 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They keep you behind a fence? My post was about DE's intentions. I think he's made them clear enough that it's hard to mistake them if you've read his comentary. Backsword 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's better to understand the implications of the changes, how they came about and how they will affect the future, and examine the words in the policy rather than to follow the intent of the author. And is conceptualizing so hard? - BeX 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's better to understand the actual effect, but here they should be one and the same here. This system has been used elsewere, and there it has worked as intended, which is also what one would conclude from a theoretical analysis. Really, I may not always agree with DE, but I would not insinuate that he was incompetent or inexperienced. Backsword 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

lol WUT? - BeX 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... there's one dissenter and a number of supporters, and nobody has commented in over a week now (including the lone dissenter)... so... can I claim that this represents consensus? And since I do plan to stake exactly that claim, I suggest that if you find fault with this proposal you speak up in the near future. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy there. Drastically changing one of the main policies on this wiki with just a handful of supporters? A policy which was worked on and discussed by a much larger number of editors? I'd recommend you post about it on the community portal, bump it in GWW:RFC, and whatever else you feel you need to do to get more attention to this proposal. But I don't consider your five supporters a sign of "community consensus". If only five out of such a large community bothered to post here in sign of support, I'd interpret consensus as being in favour of keeping the status quo.

Moving on, I'm not going to comment on the spirit behind the changes as I'm not particularly partial to either side. I will comment on the language of a couple of points, though.

• However, the sphere of their influence extends to any endeavor necessary to ensure a high level of professionalism and decorum on this wiki. ← Why would you expect "professionalism and decorum" from amateur gamers who are editing a videogame wiki in their free time for fun? I'd just scrap this sentence, I don't think it adds anything to the policy.
• While they may be limited by policy... ← "May"? Are you leaving it as an exercise for the reader? If they're supposed to respect existing policy, then "they must respect and not violate existing policies". Otherwise... rephrase it somehow else (even though I'd expect it'd be a controversial change).
• ...their powers are not limited to those expressly granted by policy. ← are those powers so unlimited as to give them special advantage over normal editors in content matters? Over internal wiki matters (including regarding new policies/guidelines)? How much discretion do they have on dealing with disruption? Since their powers are not limited to following the policy, won't they overlap with the bureaucrat/ArbComm function, making the latter a worse version of the first? Wouldn't it be saner to just put some more focused clauses for intentional disruption/trolling instead of making such vague wide statements?
• While the only true check on the power of a sysop is a bureaucrat... ← again, this is not true. The ArbComm is the check on sysops, not individual bureaucrats. Also, don't forget about reconfirmations, which are really the nice and clean way for the community to deal with sysops that need re-examining.

Until the above have been dealt with and clarified, I'm opposing this proposal. --Dirigible 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... this proves it, prematurely claiming consensus is an excellent way to force feedback. Now, on to your commentary. Regarding the last point you made, I think it's debatable (ArbComm is made of bureaucrats, and bureaucrats are the ones carrying out a decision reached via a reconfirmation -- not to mention the fact that I state that "Their status may also be formally examined by the arbitration committee or by the community via an official reconfirmation.") but I don't think it's terribly important, so I've changed that particular sentence.

Moving on to your second to last point, I guess I can see where you're coming from... it's one of those instances where my intent has not been sufficiently carried out by my words, so I'll have to think of a way to re-state it. That clause is not meant to endow them with greater sway than any other user, it's merely meant to indicate that if someone is being (as Auron might say) an asshat, but they're not technically breaking any policy per se (or any comparable situation), then a sysop is still within his/her rights to ban the user. I'll reword it.

Damn semantics. The point is that policy can and does limit them in certain contexts, but it doesn't necessarily define the broader scope of their authority. Again, I'll reword it.

And finally, your first point (which for whatever reason I've decided to address last): perhaps professionalism is the wrong word, but I don't think decorum is incorrect at all. Saying that we expect decorum doesn't mean that we don't allow any kind of joking around or anything like that, but, it does mean that we expect it to not get out of hand. I suppose that this kind of problem is "caught" to a certain extent by other clauses which indicate a certain level of sysop discretion, I thought there was a reason to mention it specifically. However, what's important (imo) is that the end result be the same with or without that particular sentence, so I'll remove it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, I've attempted to reword where possible... if we can't expect a "high level of professionalism and decorum," I'd hope we can expect a "reasonable level of decorum." If that's too much to expect... well, I suppose the line can be removed. I removed the line saying that "While the only true check on the power of a sysop is a bureaucrat." As to your second and third points, I reworded the section in question somewhat... but I'd be interested to hear what your idea of a "focused clauses for intentional disruption/trolling" would be. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with the decorum thing remaining, for the same reason as earlier. This is a videogame wiki, edited by amateurs in their free time just for fun. If people want to joke around, let them. How is it going to get out of hand?

I did not get an answer about how these new powers of sysops won't overlap with those of the ArbComm, making it largely redundant? If a sysop can unilaterally ban Karlos for a month, Erasculio for two and permablock Raptors for the good of the wiki, where does that leave the need for an ArbComm? Is it only supposed to kick in if a sysop's action is being questioned? The current proposal does not deal with this, and this needs to be clarified, as I'm having a hard time understanding where you think these two roles should stand in regards to each other.

What I mean with focused clauses for intentional disruption/trolling? Anything that actually mentions those words would do. For instance, "...they are not confined to what policy specifically allows them while dealing with intentional disruption or trolling". Wouldn't that do the job just as well, without needing to leave the door wide open? Again, I'm not particularly partial to either side (in the increasing admin discretion debate), so this is nothing more than an observation. If the goal here is simply to deal with asshats better, isn't it easier to explicitly give them more discretion when dealing with asshats, rather than giving them more discretion, period? --Dirigible 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the line regarding decorum; that particular clause isn't terribly important to me, and I'd prefer not to debate it. Regarding ArbComm, while there might be some overlap, I believe that under this system, there's still a distinct role for ArbComm to play. So, under this system, when would ArbComm "kick in:"

• When there's a question as to the proper course of action
• When a sysop's action is under scrutiny
• When parties involved in a dispute request mediation

This isn't an aspect of the policy I've been thinking about much, so that list may be incomplete; however, while an individual sysop might be able to find a remedy for such situations, ArbComm is still best equipped to deal with those scenarios. If a situation can be fixed via uncontested sysop action, I don't see a need for ArbComm to step in.

As to your last paragraph (and, unfortunately, I've gotta run), while banning asshats may be part of why I think this change would be beneficial, I think there are more far-reaching benefits to giving sysops broad discretion than to limiting it to a clause regarding intentional disruption or trolling. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the wording be made more clear as to what kind of actions are being authorized beyond blocks for intentional disruption/trolling? The "not confined" clause could still be interpreted as only saying that this policy simply does not impose such a limitation, which has a wide gap from the other potential extreme of fully authorizing sysops to decide all matters not already specifically covered by policy (is that what is intended?). I think the advantages and disadvantages of that aspect is the key issue here. --Rezyk 09:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I understand your comment correctly, that is in fact what I intended. It's not only restricted to intentional disruption or trolling. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the wording of the proposal be made more clear as to what kind of actions are being authorized? Consider even wording your intention like I wrote: "Sysops are fully authorized to decide all matters not already specifically covered by policy". You might even replace that entire "Sysops are administrators who .." paragraph with that, to reduce potential confusion about whether this is just a bit of extra flexibility versus completely changing the adminship model. I believe the exchange between Bexor and Backsword above revolved around this point of confusion. --Rezyk 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I inserted that line after the opening paragraph in an attempt to prevent confusion. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this change, Brains, Galil and Bex summed it up fine. There you go, DE, explicit enough? :P - anja 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsection 1

What I dont really get is why is this about extending ADMIN policy beyond what a GWW policies say? Isnt the ADMIN policy about what admins do, and what Bcrats do, and how they should act in relation to actual policies? ADMIN shouldnt include the policy NPA. So why does this seem like we are trying to give ADMIN a "Dont be Disruptive" policy? I think that is what this amounts to because this is trying to give admins more freedom to act on what harms this wiki that isnt really said in any present policy. NPA is all fine and good, but it isnt totally effective for all kinds of disruptive behavior. A policy about behavior is what this place needs in my opinion. That users should have respect not only for other users, but for the point of the wiki itself (which is to document a game called Guild Wars). There is no need to extend ADMIN to say admins can act beyond policy. That line is basically speaks of something missing in the current set of policies. Specifically calling out for a "Respect the Wiki's purpose and its Users" policy or something. If you are some 14 year old who wants to say "epic fail" and "GAY" to every skill update or troll people because you are too bored, you need to removed. We dont need their worthless 2 cents. It is of no worth to the wiki. If they cant contribute in a reasonable way, get rid of them.

Auron and DE also seem to talk about how admins fear enforcing policy, not wanting to upset the trolls, or because maybe the user is of "high" standing or a "wikilawyer". If Auron does something that warrants a ban for a normal user, Auron should be banned as well. I dont care who Auron is. I dont care what his standing in the community is or how many sheep follow him blindly. If you are disruptive to the wiki, you should be banned (and there is such a thing as a temporary ban, it doesnt need to be forever). If it is some wikilawyer, let them complain, let the community sort out who is right and be done with it. If the admins dont feel like enforcing a policy, people need to remove those admins. You dont need to give them arbitrary powers.--riceball 02:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok... well, because I think it's easier to respond to, I'll start with the point you make in your second paragraph. The point you make is a "nice" one, and if everything was as "neat" as you seem to think it should be, that would be one thing, but whether or not things should be one way or the other, the fact remains that Auron wasn't banned (despite the fact that he says he should have been) and that wikilawyers remain a constant thorn in the side of Admin discretion. The way to solve that (in my opinion) is to give Admins discretion. While we're on the subject of what people talk about, I'd like to say that you seem to talk about (here and on my latest RfBM talk page) certain failures as being the fault of the Admins. I, on the other hand, (and Auron explained this quite nicely on my RfBM) see these as a failure of the policy system. That's why I want to change that system.

Now, regarding your first paragraph: all I can say is that I see your comments as a complete misinterpretation of my proposal. This isn't about NPA or any other specific policy. Sure, if someone's being an asshat, but they're not specifically violating policy, I think Admins should be able to ban them, but this proposal goes to a much larger issue than anything that could be solved by the addition of yet more onerous policy that someone can interpret literally thus rendering the Admins even more impotent. More specificity, more policy, is exactly what the situation does not call for; that's the whole point. People, or edits, or any number of other things can be harmful to the Wiki without remotely resembling NPA or anything else that we could define via policy. Now, "Isnt the ADMIN policy about what admins do." Sure, that's exactly what this is, this says what sysops can do, whether or not that's in relation to current policy is irrelevant (although I'd point out that this is specifically in terms of policy). Either way though, I think you're kind of missing the point... but I don't know how else to explain it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can really say is I think I am getting your point, and Aurons point, even though you both think im missing it. I dont think my points are being understood, but that very well could be because they are bad, or maybe I am not explaining them well. I know this isnt about NPA, my point wasnt that this was NPA. It was an example as to how ADMIN is about how an admin should work according the policies made in the wiki such as NPA. That it shouldnt include NPA content, NPA content should be in its own seperate policy as it exactly is. I say this as a point because I believe giving an admin more discretion is basically like adding in an actual "policy" within the ADMIN policy. The discretion is wanted because there are types of things that are disruptive to the wiki that are not really covered by policy. There is a reason for this, there is big hole in the current set of policies. I was really surprised when I looked at the policies this place has, and how it has nothing that really talks about "respecting users/respecting purpose of the wiki" in BOLD. Maybe its tucked away somewhere within some more general policy. But I think this place needs basically an anti-asshat policy. If you want to be disruptive, or make worthless comments because you are bored, you need to be removed. And I see no reason why that cant be included into a new policy, even if you think thats exactly what this place doesnt need. I think having a easy to find policy about that in relatively clear writing is all admins would need to start banning people over all this crap. That policy would say if you are disruptive according to the consensus of the community, you are gone, whether or not you try to lawyer up.--riceball 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

DE, I'm sorry, I'm sure you'd love for me to comment on this but I just can't deal with the headaches of this wiki's admin policy... But I trust you to be able to properly bring discretion to this wiki. -- Armond Warblade

Instead of creating multiple policies, a blanket policy which covers what admins can do about multiple things by simply giving them that "discretion", but without specifically stating every single thing would be more effective in my opinion. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that common line of reasoning is weak. By that logic, there is no purpose to having any policy and you should just have admins who can do whatever they want. There is a giant gap policy, so you just need to plug that gap. You do not need to state "every specific instance", its a general policy just as NPA is a general policy about NPA. You dont need to state every specific kind of NPA to still ban someone with it, now do you? You dont need to give every kind of disruption in a non-disruption policy. Its a general spirit that would cover all the things NPA misses. Then if admins actually decide to ban people for actual banable actions, and not just the people they dont like, we might be getting somewhere. There are things that are known bans here already, that admins fail to act on it. That doesnt require more freedom, that requires them to do their job. And you might actually start making a culture here that is better than it presently is. Not a little elite social club.--riceball 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

In a perfect world, a general policy is enough. However, some people can't get past the wikilawyering. When people start quoting things from policies or they say they can do something because it's not in a any policy, that's when admins feel they can't do anythng. Expanding on this admin policy by letting them cover said unincluded clauses decreases the amount of wikilawyering or defiance against a policy. That might actually "better the culture" here. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think a new policy would simply cover "all things NPA misses", Riceball? You don't think trolls and smartheads can find loopholes in that policy too? Paper will always be less flexible than humans. - anja 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What I dont understand is how do people not see through wiki lawyering? Let them, ignore it. Just because someone bitches doesnt make what they say valid. I see how trolls talk, I see how so-called smartheads talk. I dont see how it allows them to escape the spirit of a policy. No policy will prevent such things in all situations. Just as having more power to act beyond a policy will not prevent this. You think that will suddently stop wikilawyering? This is more a question of what is the purpose of even having a single policy? Why do you if this is your attitude? If you have power beyond any policy, all policy has absolutely no meaning other than a being a friendly suggestion. To me, there is a reason why there are policies and why there are guidelines. A policy is the rule of law. You follow these things because its important for a functional wiki. There is a reason why NPA is a policy, and not a guideline. Just as there should be a policy for being civil and focused on the point of the wiki. A wiki isnt supposed to be a social forum. But I many people treating it as such.

Auron does something that deserved a ban. Auron even admits this. Auron wasnt banned. WHY? Because the admins fail at their job. Sure they can clean up the gibberbots, sure they can clean up the vandals. Has any admin looked at Izzy's skill pages? 90% of that page is filled with bitching and disruptive comments that break the entire point of having Izzy able to help the overall community. I rarely see any admin going "why are you saying such worthless and pointless comments just for the sake of it." Because no policy speaks of preventing this stupidity. So yeah, I think a policy is needed for this, and yeah, I know it wont be perfect. But I think it would actually provide what this debate is looking for. A more clear situation to which admins can punish this idiot behavior.--riceball 16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You say the admins fail at their job. What is their job, currently? To enforce policy using consensus, the policy itself and limited discretion. If that limit of the discretion was heightened, maybe the admins would have done something about it because ADMIN would let them (or perhaps more appropriately, the userbase's stereotype of the current ADMIN didn't let them). Not only are admins restricted to policy, but they are restricted by the stance the userbase takes on policy. Change that stance by making discretion more obvious, and you change the stance on admins and therefore allow them to increase their capabilities.

If you still think there needs to be a policy regarding user behaviour, them propose one. Currently, this proposal is not solely about user behaviour, but about allowing admins to increase their abilities to do what's best for the wiki without being restricted by wikilawyers or by those who think that policy must include everything that is and is not allowed. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine if extending ADMIN focused on making it more explicit about following the spirit of the policy. But the spirit of the policy is within the written form of the policy. You dont need to go beyond what that policy says. Example: NPA doesnt list every single kind of NPA in existance. Yes? Yet for the most part it works fine, because there is a common sense spirit to it, and you tend to know it when you see it. If admins are failing at their job because they worry about people not understanding this concept of an implied meaning, by all means express that more explicitly. I think the present wording invalidates the concept of having any policy.

There are things that deserve a ban already, specifically from what policy says. And yet it goes ignored because of who the people are or because admins just dont care or are too scared to do anything. So if that is already the case, why do admins need more power to not ban people and to ignore policy (especially in more arbitrary ways)? Kind of puzzling dont you think?

Once you say an admin has no limits, and this is exactly what this is asking for, it is elite rule. I think that is exactly what a wiki shouldnt be about. A wiki should be about a the community coming together to help each other out. Idealism? Maybe. But why should a small group of people control what everyone else can do in completely unwritten ways? Is Reconfirmation really that much of a check on this power? Who votes on it? Probably the same 50 users who are the social elite. 99% of the community doesnt pay attention to that stuff. Policy is what protects the average community. It gives everyone equal footing, and a relatively clear direction of what should and shouldnt be done on this site. Policy is what is lacking here. Admin behavior is what is lacking here. Double standards are what is lacking here.

As to why I dont write up this policy? Its clear people dont care about this. So why waste my time?--riceball 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are severely misunderstanding this draft. It is not about overriding any other policy, nor is it about giving admins 100% power, nor is it about taking away any limits. Admins will still have to respect policy and act on what policy says/means. However, they are given that extra little bit of reasonable authority to be allowed to do what's best for the wiki if a policy doesn't include something. It's all about what they can do that's best for the wiki. The first line of the sysop section even says they block according to Guild Wars Wiki policy. It doesn't say they can do whatever they want. This doesn't give them any sway over policy or content and they are still expected to follow policy and consensus.-- Brains12 \ Talk 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sysops are expected to generally adhere to policy

--That line is my major problem. "Generally"? There is nothing general about it. They should adhere to policy. If you want to add that there is such a thing as the spirit of a policy, thats fine by me. That can moderate wikilawyering mostly. But the spirit of any policy is based upon what is specifically said within the policy. The spirit of NPA isnt about not being a jerk. Its about not personally attacking someone. And it doesnt require every kind of NPA be listed to still apply to those situations. The spirit is where common sense comes into play and community consensus. But to say you dont really need to adhere to policy means you are acting upon something that isnt even within the common sense "spirit" in my opinion. And basically leads down a path where policy is meaningless, because "generally" pretty open to do otherwise. Maybe I am the only one who sees it this way, but thats how I see it.--riceball 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very steep and slippery slope you're going along there, Riceball - from one word "generally" (which may have been a byproduct of DE's hasty wording or perhaps because it is a draft) to all policy being meaningless. If you have such a major problem with that word, maybe take it out of the draft? Also, what annoys me to the point of craziness, is why you think this wlll happen. Do you think all admins are so untrustworthy that they will go on a rampage of going against policy? Do you think that they are so bad at gauging policy that they won't realise they should be adhering to policy? And why, when you say the admins are bad or that they fail at their job, do you not request reconfirmation? It's there for a reason. Reconfirmation fails when people do not use it. You can't say admins are incapable of doing their job and that they are not questioned by anyone, when their reconfirmation is not requested in the first place. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Generally", in my opinion, is there to give leeway to sysops for unforeseen situations with users to prevent lawyering by the defendant. Also, Riceball, admins are 95% successful. This wiki is cruising along in content, and from the outside appears to work fine. Sure, there is a bit of in-fighting over policies and actions, but those tend to be resolved within a few days, and both sides are satisfied with the resolution. If you think the sysops are failing in some aspect of their job, or multiple aspects, then, as Brains said, request reconfirmation. If the admin truly is incompetent, there will be more votes for reconfirmation, a reconfirmation will occur, and the "bad" sysop may be stripped of rights. Don't complain about faulty sysops without taking action. Calor 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd just like to point out the immense irony here... arguing over the precise meaning of the word generally is exactly the kind of semantic wikilawyering I'm trying to prevent. That said, Calor has interpreted that particular clause perfectly. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's better to iron out the lawyering problems in the policy now than in real time with some smart vandal/NPA violator. Calor 18:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, and, to be honest, I fully expected someone to complain about the line. On the other hand, while it's a minor detail, I think it's an important distinction. Policy should never lend credence to wikilawyering, and there should never arise a situation in which policy is carried through to the detriment of the wiki when simple common sense would be preferable. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Resetting Indent. You ask why I didnt put anyone up for reconfirmation. Frankly, its because I am new here. These things happened a while ago, and honestly, I was not involved in them. A while back I asked DE what warrants this change to having more subjective powers not listed in the common sense meaning of a policy. DE did not provide me with any evidence other than a post Auron made, which consisted of five points I believe. In every single point, it was basically said by Auron that the admins failed to take control of a situation. He even says he specifically deserved a ban for some actions he alluded to. Based on all of that, I had to ask "how does any of that require this change?" To me, it still didnt. To me it showed a few problems. One, it appears some admins are scared to ban people for various reasons. Two, there is a general lack of policy in my opinion to cover some more basic behavior of users. And Three, people need to understand that all policy has its literal words, and its spirit that comes from those words.

Do I think all admins suck? Nah. But I remember reading about this situation that happened long before my time here, about some user Karlos. Karlos seemed like a pretty decent person, and was an admin if I recall. He was acting like an asshat though in this one situation about talk page size or something. Basically ignoring a policy of the wiki simply because they didnt believe in it. Coming from an admin, I thought this was rather said. I also didnt really see anyone trying to deal with this on the admin side. I think tantric (or whatever their name is) was. Even if Karlos had a valid point, how he went about it was totally wrong. He didnt work to get the policy changed. He just ignored it. No one cared. In fact, I think a reconfirmation came out on him, AFTER he already left the wiki in disgust. Talk about admins not being on the ball for that. I think there is a certain level of complacency within the admins that I dont like. So do I think it will totally get out of hand necessarily with this change? Nope. But I also dont think it does presently without the change either, and it only does if admins let it (and they have). So I am just giving my opinion that its a needless change, and a change that really isnt about what it should be.

As for Calor, yes, I know this is about giving the admins more ability in unseen situations, I think all my words have said such. I have also tried to support my opinion in that this desire can be accomplished in better ways (by focusing on the spirit) and by adding/modifying a policy to cover these newly found situations.

As for DE just because Calor supports you doesnt mean they perfectly get your point while I somehow dont. I get what you are saying, I just dont really agree with how its trying to be solved. But I guess it doesnt matter what I say. Because I always wont "get" it, and because I dont agree I must be wikilawyering it up, instead of actually debating a draft of a policy. Forgive my attempts to give another side to this. I have learned my place and wont pretend I have a valid voice on this issue anymore.--riceball 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Riceball, you have as much a say in this as I do or Brains does or DE or Anja or anyone. Bringing up another point of view is good, so we can work things out from the way you see it, also, so it doesn't create a huge debate with some violator. Focusing on the "spirit of the policy" wouldn't hurt, but I do like the "generally" line, as it closes most loopholes that could be used by a violator to give us a hard time and avoid a block. Calor 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up another side of things is just as good as agreeing with something outright. It helps to create the best possible thing out of something. As for the validity of your voice, well, you're bringing out some of the opinions some users may have but don't say. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, self-degradation doesn't suit you very well; I respect your opinion -- in fact, I expected someone to "champion" the opinion -- and I have no real interest in getting into an argument about who "gets it." Now, regarding your last paragraph, I'm not quite sure what you mean by your first sentence. Calor's words reflected my original intent; that's why I said that he interpreted the sentence perfectly. My honest interpretation of your words, on the other hand, leads me to believe that you've misinterpreted my intent -- it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me or not. As to whether or not you're engaging in wikilawyering... I consider any debate over the precise meaning of a single word in a single sentence in an entire policy to be wikilawyering... it's the same as seeing the word "must" in the context of a sentence like "Admins must respect policy" and claiming that that one word means that Admins have no discretion. Yes, we disagree, and I think we disagree at a rather fundamental level. If I understand you correctly (correct me if I'm wrong)... you seem to believe that this can all be fixed by the addition of a new policy... or by having Admins who aren't bothered by wikilawyering or by a user's "social status" on the Wiki. I believe that that view is naive. As Anja said, "Paper will always be less flexible than humans." In a perfectly sterile environment, I'd say you were fully correct, but take for instance the Liche vs. Eloc scenario. Tanaric banned Eloc for harassment. Part of the community felt that Tanaric's decision was wrong, and quite a bit of controversy ensued. It's never as simple as "Ban the trolls" or "Ban people who aren't productive." Sure, if people didn't lend credence to wikilawyering, there would be no need for this policy, hell, the current policy endows the Admins with reasonable discretion. But it's a mark of the "flaw in the system," for lack of a better term, that all hell breaks loose when an Admin dares to use that discretion.

As for the situation with Karlos, I think that's an extremely simplistic evaluation of the wikidrama that occurred; but I think Brains/Calor were right, if the Admins are too complacent, create reconfirmations for 'em. The fact that you're new is irrelevant, it's not really fair to throw around accusations if you're not willing to back them up. Finally, if you think change isn't necessary, that's fine... if I see a problem where you don't, that's fine too. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than Auron or I can, but I believe we've reached something of an impasse, and personally, I don't see a whole lot of value in a shouting match. That said, I'd advise you to start acting on your views... write up reconfirmations, propose a policy, do something. The two of us mindlessly writing the same platitudinous nonsense over and over again is obviously accomplishing nothing. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation with had a lot of underlying factors involved, not the least of which was because the wiki was relatively new and the new sysops were also quite new, and Karlos was one of the old guard. Personally, I was at a lost on what's the proper "sysop-y" way to deal with it. But I believe something like that won't happen again now that most of us are better settled in.

Concerns regarding the word "generally" and the potential abuse has been echoed before, but I'm thinking that if a sysop does go rogue, whatever a policy says doesn't really matter. Also, unless most of the admins go rogue at the same time, any rogue sysop would be put down quickly.

Riceball, could you outline your reasons for opposing this change again? You seem to have several reasons scattered in several places. I personally agree with the need to clarify the discretion part and the for-the-good-of-the-wiki part. I believe one of your reasons is that changing the policy won't change the situation? Well, I think a change in behavior takes time , and sometimes behavior doesn't change because no one asked us to... -- ab.er.rant 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Revoked sysop status

The "Any revoked sysop status is reinstated at the end of the bureaucrat term, or upon resignation." line is redundant, as this policy would make bureaucrats a subset of sysops. I think that it should be replaced with "Any pre-existing sysop status is retained at the end of the bureaucrat term, or upon resignation, however a bureaucrat who was not a sysop prior to becoming a bureaucrat does not retain sysop status after resignation or the end of their term.". -- Gordon Ecker 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem in this line. Bureaucrats are, in a sense, a subset of sysops, in that they're those sysops that are deemed "good enough" to be given the additional powers. -- Armond Warblade 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But their sysop status is not removed when they become bcrats, so it wont be "reinstated" but just kept? That's how I understood it. - anja 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "revoked" and "reinstated" imply bcats being a subset. Those imply mutual exclusion. I would prefer to original line. To me, the use of "retained" is the one that implies a subset. -- ab.er.rant 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my fault, I copied the original document and must have forgotten to remove/edit that particular line. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant probably wasn't the best word, the "Bureaucrats are considered to be sysops" line makes references to revoked sysop status irrelevant. -- Gordon Ecker 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generating interest

To make it easier for others to join, can someone try to summarise the current issues or points of contention being discussed? This wall of text will make it difficult for people to try to join in the discussion or even to figure out what's currently being discussed. -- ab.er.rant 14:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't think there are too man y contentious issues left. There's still a question of the interaction between ArbComm and the sysops under this policy (see Dir's post in the first section). I gave him an answer, but I'm not sure that that one response reflects a well-thought-out process. Then there are some issues regarding word choice here and there, although, for the most part, I've tried to edit the document to reflect those concerns. The only really major issue (and it's becoming a somewhat dead thread) is Riceball's, i.e. the second section, and as near as I can tell, Riceball essentially questions the necessity of this policy and/or what the policy would accomplish. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have to poke individual users to get them to take a look and at least post a comment (or just threaten to bulldoze it through if no one bothers to comment :P). Otherwise, it would be pretty difficult to get this through the door with so little participation. I think all the squabbles about it burned out a lot of users and many don't want to get involved again.

Personally, I think the current group of sysops are now more at ease with their roles and things seem smoother now, but that of course still needs another explosion of drama to show if things have indeed changed. As such, while I welcome a change to spell out a sysop discretion, I don't feel too strongly about it, most likely because (as riceball noted) it likely won't much affect the way I've been doing things. -- ab.er.rant 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As to bothering individual users, if it comes to that, I'll do so, but for now I'd prefer not to have this discussion hinge on getting one or two people back into the discussion. Regarding your second paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that that was true (although I agree that it's not really possible to know until push comes to shove). That said, even if it were 100% true, I'd still prefer an ADMIN policy that codifies that change. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aberrant's exactly right with the last sentence in his first paragraph. I try to stay away from policy discussions for the most part due to what often occurs. I put in my two cents above, and then felt overwhelmed by the walls of text from Brains, DE, and Riceball. I think a lot of other users see discussions similar to that and just stay away.

Regarding "bulldozing it through if no one bothers to listen", Aberrant, if I understand correctly, said the sysops as a whole are very content with the state of the wiki, politically. If this is so, then there's really no need to change things up. Unless, of course, the admins, being the target of this proposal, want more autonomy in operating and have policy backing them up. Calor 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I do have a tendency to write quite a bit when it comes to policy discussions :). As to your second paragraph, I agree completely. The community at large obviously has a say in this, and if they're dead set against it, then it's obviously gonna get tabled. But the admins are the only people who would feel any immediate effects of this policy. If they honestly think it would do no good (either in changing the system or in codifying a change), that's fine. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence falls under "stating the obvious" :). And to eliminate any doubt from my initial post, I don't mean for the sysops to make any decision on whether there should even be discussion on policy, just that if they don't want the way they work changed, it shouldn't be. Calor 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues that need attention:

• First and foremost, this proposal is about giving sysops much more discretion in their actions. If you disagree that this discretion is needed, or if you think that giving admins this much freedom would cause too much harm/too many complications/too many potential pitfalls to be worth it, speak up.
• This proposal currently states "sysops are fully authorized to decide all matters not already specifically covered by policy". Read that as giving admins an extra portion of discretion on top of what they'd need to deal with trolls better. So, even if you agree that we should give sysops sufficient freedom to deal with intentional disruption and trolls, you may disagree with them being given more weight and authority than regular editors even in other unrelated issues. This may be interpreted to go against the "sysophood should be no big deal, it's just a set of tools" line of thinking which, for at least a period of time, was the popular view on this wiki.
• Another point that needs to be clarified is where this new admin role would stand in regards to the ArbComm. If the sysops have so much discretion in dealing with users they find to be problematic, that will overlap with the current role of the ArbComm. See Defiant Elements' posts above to understand how he sees this issue (of course, this will need to be codified in the policy proposal, it can't just stay in the talk page).

I think it's important that these issues get discussion. --Dirigible 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I've added a section on the relationship between ArbComm and the sysops, but it is subject to change pending discussion. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For the line In essence, sysops are fully authorized to decide all matters not already specifically covered by policy., I'm thinking it would be better to somehow tie it back to the implication of an earlier line where it states the role of sysops is to do what is best for the Wiki. Might make it more palatable to those less enthusiastic about sysop discretion. I'll go ping RFC again -- ab.er.rant 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the recent versions without the "fully authorized" line: It's way too ambiguous what the extent of change to sysops actually is. The intended interpretation appears to include sysop authority on all decisions outside written policy, but these proposals could easily be interpreted by some to not do that. This stuff should be made pretty clear.

For the recent versions with the "fully authorized" line: The main issue I see with this is how far it would undermine our past culture of deciding by consensus. If we are going to stick to consensus, any broadly-discretionary admin role should be appropriately structured in limiting damage to the consensus model. (Example: Limiting it to matters of user conduct.) It isn't clear what need there is to go so far in circumventing consensus decision-making. If we are instead just opting to completely abandon the consensus ideal (replacing it with a representative democracy this time?), that shift ought to be clearly and publicly determined as such so we know when to stop worrying about safeguarding it.

--Rezyk 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the "fully authorized" line. Also, "However, sysops have no additional sway on matters of content or policy." As near as I can tell, the only "spheres of influence" are policy, content, and user conduct. So, unless I've missed something, this policy already explicitly limits the unilateral power of Sysops to issues related to user conduct. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That depends too much on debatable reasoning to really be considered explicit/reliable. Anyways, that was just an example of a small limitation (that doesn't even do much by itself). I could come up with more ways to meaningfully limit the damage to consensus, but it'd ultimately be recreating ArbComm from scratch again.

What are the primary objectives you have in mind that warrant giving extra deciding power beyond expected consensus? And why not integrate it straight into bureaucrats' power instead, given that those seats have been designed around handling the heavy discretion stuff appropriately?

--Rezyk 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally tired with policies atm, so forgive my non-wordiness. Is there a way to make the first paragraph in the sysop section less wordy and less confusing? We are basically repeating "follow policy where written" three or four times with a slightly different wording each time, and it's not getting clearer with each sentence, just longer. This is my idea:

"Sysops are authorized to use their discretion in all matters not specifically covered by policy, and what is best for the Wiki is always first priority"

How does that sound? Too few words? :P - anja 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to address that issue by removing one of the several sentences and making another one clearer. --Xeeron 11:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from User talk:Xeeron

For the most part, I'm ambivalent about the changes you made, but there is one change that I'd like to highlight. Specifically, the line "Although they should not break policy..." You changed the wording to "Although they must not break policy" (a change which I've reverted for the time being). It's not necessarily a huge deal, but it does alter my original intent (I'm not sure if that was accidental or not). Assuming, however, that did take issue with the original wording, may I ask why? In my opinion, even if it's only applicable in .01% of cases, policy should never be upheld to the detriment of the Wiki if a more beneficial solution exists. Essentially, the well-being of the Wiki should always outrank policy as far as order of importance goes. So, again, assuming you take issue with that, could you bring it up on the talk page so we can discuss it? *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted 2 changes, so I will explain the rationale behind the edits here:

1. Removing In essence, sysops are fully authorized to decide all matters not already specifically covered by policy.

• Either you interpret this as "sysops are not confined to what policy specifically allows them". In this case it is redundant, because that is said in a sentence before.
• Or you interpret this as ranging further, giving admins the power do decide anything not specifically covered by policy (that is the way I read it). In this case it is contradictory with the sentence just before, "sysops have no additional sway on matters of content or policy", because it would give sysops the authority to decide exactly that (along with anything else not specified in policy).

1. "should" -> "must" (not break policy)

• That is a case of semantics. For me, should is weaker and implies that, it is ok for sysops to break policy from time to time. This is different from the "loop-hole" discussion, because here we talk about stuff that has been decided by lengthy consensus before written into policy, instead of stuff that is not covered. Why should sysops not be bound by consensus? --Xeeron 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the second point: "Must" implies, to me, that it doesn't matter if it's the best for the wiki or it stops the wiki from crashing or whatever, sysops should never break policy. "Should", on the other hand, places sysops on the same level just about any user on wiki. No one should ever break policy, if they do not have a very good reason to do so. That's why I think should is better than must. The choice between must and should is not so important so it makes the difference between "bound by consensus or not". - anja 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember having had the discussion about the strictness of "should" vs "must" before. It seems that "should" is much harder to everyone else compared to me, so in that case I am ok with leaving it as should. I am still curious about how a situation where sysops would need to break policy right away, without getting consensus first, to prevent the wiki from crashing. I have a hard time comming up with a story that makes that even remotely likely. --Xeeron 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the proposal isn't saying they have the absolute final say, just that they can do a little bit extra. At the moment, if consensus was for a sysop to do carry out an action, but it is against policy, a change must first be made to the policy. That delays anyone from taking action that has already been decided on because of a technicality. Whereas with this proposal, if consensus says for a sysop to carry out that action, he can without needing a change in policy because it's "it's in the best interests of the wiki". Once the situation is dealt with, then a policy change can be made if necessary.

That's an example, but the basic principle is the same - it's to give a little bit extra, not to give everything including the authority to unquestionably break policy. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The way you describe it is the way it should be (and implicitly, I'd argue it already is that way). However the current proposal is different. --Xeeron 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasons and motivations

I'm a bit surprised to see such a focus on loopholes in the debate. I can't actually remember any time that's been an issue. There might well have been some, but it can't be a major issue and in any case you'd expect something less drastic to have been tried and failed first.

If you meant something like 'A system change is warranted for excellent reasons X and Y, and as a side benefit any issue with loopholes will be autmaticlly fixed' I'd understand it better. But in that case one would expect the focus to be on X and Y. Backsword 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, when I wrote this, I wasn't really thinking of it in terms of specific reasons why this change should be implemented, it wasn't in terms of X and Y. I merely felt that this system was more efficient/effective... whatever you want to call it, I thought it would do the job better; in fact, the notion that it would prevent wikilawyering/abusing loopholes, while it probably crossed my mind at some point or another, was not something I was really thinking about (even in terms of a side benefit). It just so happens that this is one of the aspects on which people have focused. It was also about encouraging a trend towards increased discretion which had been occurring independent of this document. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat -> Bureaucrat, Sysop

I'm currently undecided on this extra change (and it's one that hasn't seen much discussion yet). I'd like to hear what others think about it, and how it'll affect this proposal. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are advantages and disadvantages to both. On the one hand, keeping bureaucrats separate from sysop powers ensures we do have a proper separation of powers. We would not have to worry about arbcom cases when one arbcom member is involved due to his sysop actions and bureaucrats would be more neutral in general. On the other hand, there are tons of day to day issues where the separation is only an unneeded hinderance. Why should a bureaucrat not be able to ban a spam bot and have to wait for a sysop instead? The latter arguement becomes less convincing the more active our sysops are (if there is a sysop reacting withhin minutes of each admin noticeboard post, the bureaucrat will not make a difference).

Then, you could have individual preferences to give more/less power to the bureaucrats to create/prevent a function of "leaders", unrelated to the other considerations.

Overall, I am ambigous on this change. For me, pro and contra are evenly weighted and I don't think the whole issue will matter much anyway. --Xeeron 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a major issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly happy to discuss its merits, but, frankly, it's not something that I'm gonna defend if people are deadset against it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a change, except we now allow bcrats to block a rampant vandal or two, and realistically those cases are very few, and even fewer considering our active sysop team. To me it's weird to not have that right. If you are trusted to be in ArbComm, you should be trusted to block an odd vandal. - anja 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather unrelated to the system change, so perhaps it would have been better as a seperate propasal. IIRC that's been done efore. DOn't remember why people were against it. Backsword 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to advocate sysop discretion (which I am), doesn't increasing bureaucrat discretion (even if in a very limited manner) go hand in hand with that? Again, it's not hugely important, and if people oppose it, I'll remove it, but it is something I'm in favor of, and I do think it has some relation to the overall trend supported by this policy of trusting admins. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another concern

"keeping in mind that the role of sysops is to do what is best for the Wiki"

Stuff like this in policies is what my wiki nightmares are made of. Not, of course, the fact that sysops should try to do what is best for the wiki (we all should), but the way this sentence can be used and abused. I don't have to think hard to imagine sysops defending their controversial actions, when challenged, with the words "I did what is best for the wiki, just like the admin policy states", brushing aside discussion and consensus (and policies). In that line using their own believes of what is best for the wiki.

For me, there is a clear order: Present consensus beats past consensus (=policies). Past consensus beats individual opinions (=what one persons thinks is best for the wiki).

If there is a consensus on what the best course of action is now, do act. No policy should stand in your way (being against consensus, said policy will be changed anyway). However if there is no consensus, no individual gets the right to discard the consensus that everyone found before and cast aside policies.

Let me deflate the counter arguement which I am sure is bound to come up: "But what about all those cases of wiki-lawyering, policy-loopholes and situations we did not think of?". Well, the first two are nicely taken care of by the other changes in here, so they are no longer a concern. The last one? Simple: If it is new, discuss, get consensus, act. Once everyone agrees what is best for the wiki, there is no problem anymore. --Xeeron 15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If something is so controversial that it's either not in policy (and therefore, "can't" be dealt with as such), discussion is bound to occur. On the off-chance that it doesn't, I'm pretty sure a sysop will try and spark some discussion to find the consensus. I don't believe our sysops are so bad that they will ignore other users or lawyer themselves to get them out of a sticky situation or to get what they want. Admins aren't so brash that they would disregard policy, consensus or discussion just to get their result. If, however, they make a decision and discussion occurs after the block, delete, "discipline" or whatever, then I don't believe, as I said before, a sysop would disregard that. To use an example - Tanaric deleting Eloc's cannabis image on GW2W. He and a few others disagreed with a few other people, yet was willing to be mediated to find a solution (and take note that policy is non-existent (in a way) on GW2W - if there was a user page policy, Tanaric would have based his choice on that). -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a point that someone always brings up when there's a discussion of sysop discretion. And, to be honest, it's one I have trouble arguing about, because, in my experience, it's a moot point. Abuses of power such as you appear to be worried about rarely occur. And what if they do? Let's imagine the worst possible scenario. Sysop A does something controversial. Unless every single other sysop agrees with sysop A's decision (in which case it's not likely to be a very controversial issue), then one of them can contest sysop A's decision. If they cannot reach consensus through some means, then the case can go before ArbComm. And even if they all agree, then, although sysop A's decision might stand temporarily, the community could request ArbComm intervention. And what if ArbComm sides with the sysop? Why then, the community can hold a reconfirmation. So unless you believe that every single admin is going to ignore community consensus/policy, I find it hard to believe that strong opposition to sysop action is EVER going to get ignored. And if you believe that there's a sysop who was so stubborn that they would truly ignore the opposition without giving it a thought, I advise you to seriously re-evaluate that sysop. To be honest, by the time you get to the point that the opposition no longer has any recourse in terms of challenging the decision, you've got a new present consensus, which, by your own logic, is at the top of the food chain so to speak. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbComm

As the policy specifies a new role for ArbComm, it might conflict with current ArbComm policy which is written to fit into the current system, so that policy would need updating too. Also, I'm, not clear on how legaslative ArComm would be. I'll give an example situation to explain what I mean.

Say sysop A decided X is a bad thing to do and start blocking people for it, but sysop B thinks that is a bad policy. The basdic function is that if A cannot convince B, concensus has not een found and X remains allowed. But A has the option of appealing to ArbComm. Let's say ArbComm sides with A. So, the next time someone does X, A (and those who agrees with A) wants to block. Do B get to 'revert' said block? Backsword 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I entirely understand your scenario; however, assuming I understand you correctly, my answer is yes. ArbComm makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, they don't legislate. So let's say that a bunch of people from PvX migrate over here and begin creating "wtf?" chains ;). Sysop A decides that such edits constitute spam/trolling/disruption so he blocks the offenders. Sysop B disputes the bans. They attempt to reach a consensus, but both remain dead set, so ArbComm becomes involved. They side with Sysop A, thus, the bans are upheld. While this might establish a precedent by which future decisions can be rendered, sans a policy amendment, if a similar scenario were to come up, sysop B is entitled to revert. However, unless there's a major difference between the two instances, sysop B is most likely going to realize that ArbComm's decision is unlikely to change (unless there are other factors involved: community consensus changes, bureaucrats change, etc.) and thus is not likely to challenge the blocks.

Although this is an interesting point, it's not one I've given much thought to, so I'll explain my basic line of reasoning. Precedent established by ArbComm is often going to have the same impact as a new/revised policy would; however, there's one crucial difference: precedent can be overturned or rendered moot by a revision to policy or a new policy, much like a U.S. Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a Constitutional amendment. However, once we start giving ArbComm actual legislative authority, it makes it that much harder for the user base at large (the legislature) to check the authority of ArbComm (the judiciary). That said, it's not something I'm strictly against per se, but it opens up an entirely different can of worms that I don't want to get into at the moment, particularly given that, as I note above, unless the community really opposes ArbComm's decision, the precedent set by that decision is likely to have just as much authority as a policy would without the potential danger to decisions via consensus. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this proposal doesn't explicitly say anything about precedent, and the arbitration policy explicitly states that ArbComm rulings do not set binding precedent. The way I see it, the ArbComm is supposed to deal with issues which "slip through the cracks" of policy, allowing policy to remain concise, and precedent as an informal understanding rather than a hard rule is sufficient for that purpose. Binding precedents would cause policy to sprawl out of control, and could cause serious problems if the ArbComm was forbidden from overturning the precedents of previous ArbComms. -- Gordon Ecker 05:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's just what I was wondering about. I think you are right about the effect of informal precedence. Even if B's side insists on tsking every case to ArbComm, there would still be awareness that it's effectivly againt policy, and people would still warn people getting close.

Bit surprised about your last claim tho'. If sysops are unable to get to consensus, a larger group whom sysops are a subset of should find it likewise impossible? Backsword 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you seem to have grasped some facet of my answer that I myself am unaware of... what do you mean by my "last claim"? *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was simply pointing out that the situation would only occur when sysops disagreed, and as such, no ruling could conflict with a consensus. Backsword 08:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead?

Is this no more? While the proposal was initially unclear and some mistaking it for something else, so a discussion about how it would technically work logically followed, I'd expected to see I debate about the desirability of various effects. But nothing has come, one way or the other. Should we really just place this on history's garbage dump with no more words? (It also makes compromise that much harder) Backsword 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of good points made above but some of the points raised come from contrasting ideas on the role of a sysops and the relationship between bureaucrats. I'll try to summarise at a later date, to at least give a little starting point for a continued discussion on whether this is needed. I'm also thinking it might be possible to split this proposal into two or three - sysop role change, bureaucrat role change, their relationships with ArbComm. -- ab.er.rant 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading Rezyk's proposal, I'm more inclined to support (or at least continue to work on) that one. It's more concise and likely easier to read. So I'm going to pass on this. Perhaps I'll bring some points over from here. -- ab.er.rant 08:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)