Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2007-12-27

Ambiguity

The phrase "empowered to ban user, delete and protect pages, and rollback edits in cases of vandalism" is ambiguous, does "in cases of vandalism" only apply to rollback, or does it also apply to blocking, deletion and protection? -- Gordon Ecker 08:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It was meant to apply only to rollback. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference from current gww

Can you please resume the differences from this policy to the one in course on gww? Coran Ironclaw 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can try. Sysops are (largely) functionally the same; however, I tried to word it in such a way as to make it clearer that Sysops are autonomous and can use their powers largely as they see fit. It's a semantic difference, I know, but semantics shape perception, and perception is, in my experience, incredibly important when it comes to how the policy is actually applied and enforced. As far as Bureaucrats go, being a Bureaucrat is no longer mutually exclusive to being a Sysop (although I tried to, at the same time, prevent possible conflicts of interest), they are also given the final say on matters of policy and RfAs and may, if necessary, make final decisions regarding bureaucrat elections. But again, while functionally the policies may be similar, I think that the tone and the wording of the two pieces are altogether different (particularly when it comes to the Sysop section). *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"limited by policy, but not limited to policy"

What exactly is this intended to mean? --Edru/QQ 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking they aren't totally autonomous, but are allowed to use common sense. So you can't block someone because you don't like them, but you can if they're being disruptive and the way they are doing it isn't covered in policy. Lord of all tyria 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) They can put their abilities to something that isn't a policy, so they are not bound to administrating only things related to policy. But, if a policy restricts them from doing something, they cannot do it. Therefore, they are limited by policy, in that they must adhere to it also, but they aren't limited to only policies. -- br12 • (talk) • 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. K. This seems like a good admin policy, although I don't like fixed terms for bcrats. --Edru/QQ 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The bcrats having fixed terms is an anet thing iirc, and since this is their big playground, its their rules. Lord of all tyria 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anet not interfering with our policies is another anet thing iirc. --Edru/QQ 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the sentence "limited by policy, but not restricted to policy" be much more clear? Coran Ironclaw 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm... I don't see how changing a single word with another synonymous word would make it clearer... it's certainly not a big deal by any means (although I do like the turn of phrase I used), I just don't see how it would help. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, mm maybe something like "Their actions are limited by policy restrictions, but they can do more than policy allows them to" ? I like your phrase also but it is confusing. Coran Ironclaw 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer my phrasing up a few lines. -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I say "limited by policy, but not restricted to policy" seems kind of contradictory. You ARE restricted to the policy. The point of this (I think) is to say that an admin "isn't JUST limited to policy". That they can play in the gray area where there is no rule, and act as your lord and master. Why this is needed, no one has been able to tell me so far. Why a policy can't be modifed instead? I don't know. I think its a lazy need out of lazy policy creation. If there is a common community consensus which the admins should follow which that isnt in a policy, it should be if its something an admin will act on in my opinion.--riceball 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understood the phrase immediately, but I see how it could be misunderstood or confusing. Maybe "Admins do what policy tells, but also are allowed to act on their own accord, unless the specific action is forbidden by policy". But maybe that's confusing, too. Calor (t) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

@Riceball: The purpose of that phrase is to avoid overly bulky policies that seek to define every possible eventuality without regard for extenuating circumstances. All that this means to say is that policies may restrict what an Admin can do, but they should generally avoid saying precisely what an Admin is entitled to do to the exclusion of any discretion on the part of the Admins.

As to whether it's confusing, that's a semantic detail at best, and certainly one that can be easily dealt with if the need arises. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I get ya. I get this is about being as vague as possible. Thats kind of my whole problem with it. The more vague it is, the harder it is for people to understand what the actual policy is sometimes. I in no way or fashion demand every specific instance to be written, that would also be nonsense. An NPA policy does not need to list every single kind of NPA to be clear and common sense. Its the whole "spirit of policy" debate thats been going on. Everyone knows there is a spirit to policy, it seems to be coming down to how reasonable one needs to be expect something from whats written. Some seem to think it really doesnt need to be anywhere, while some seem to think it does need to have some reasonable basis to apply. What is so wrong with making a well done and clear policy? Wikis are not new, there have been at least 3 other Guild Wars wikis, who hasnt seen where the major problems are? Find some new important "extenuating" problem, add it in! Its kind of like saying "well, its not against the law, but it should be, so you are still going to jail." By the way could someone give me a concrete example from the past where autonomy was needed instead of altering policy?--riceball 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my use of the phrase "extenuating circumstances." What I'm trying to indicate is that each situation is slightly different, each has its own circumstances that should be considered. A policy is completed independent of the infractions against it, that is to say, the policy isn't aware that Person A violated the policy with intention X or whatever, and thus, because we cannot safeguard against this within the policy itself, it must be the Admins who are free to interpret the policy. Besides, I think that at least two of the Wikis, PvX and GW, are great examples of why this kind of autonomy works. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GW and PvX are "great" examples of this eh? I recall hearing a person say they know of a perception of admins there being seen as tyrants. Not saying thats true, but said still, just as you can easily say its great. I don't see a problem with how GWW was. I still haven't seen an example where this power grab was necessary over policy just being adapted (why is there even a point about adaption?). GWW seemed to work fine and exist fine. Lots of people seem to hate it, but I see much alluding, and little evidence. I don't know jack about these wikis. But I have read a decent amount about this debate, and I still haven't seen a need for what you ask for. Sure every situation is different, thats obvious, but its also not a major problem. These situations should be mostly know about because said previous wikis have existed for some time. Policy should still mean something, and not be a hazy cloud of arbitrary unsupported choices made in so-called "spirit".--riceball 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with Admin Discretion

I am concerned with allowing admin too much discretion outside what policy states. Obviously things like vandalism or similair activities can be banned for and don't require a policy to allow it but simply putting it down to "common sense" or personal discretion is very vague. Firstly I believe the current admin group is very tightly allied to themselves, you scratch my back I scratch yours kind of thing. It is for this reason admin discretion, even if it were out of place, is incredibly hard to contest. What kind of conflicts fall under this discretion specifically and how do we ensure that this doesn't result in users unfairly having action taken against them? Where does admin discretion stop and ArbCom begin (assuming we have a system similair to that here)? If we must allow admin discretion, I think we must at least limit it beyond weak statements of "common sense". I think we also need to set up a system which ensures people who are the subject of admin discretion are able to contest said discretion in such cases. Currently on GWW they are banned and can't comment and when they do comment they are effectively ignored, or dealt with on a minimal level and nothing comes from it. My idea is that a block made under admin discretion is to be treated differently from one made with policy backing. 58.110.142.135 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Except the good old "common sense" clause went perfectly well on GuildWiki, just with the massive bureaucracy added to GWW everything went to heck. People lost common sense, everyone started up the BS, etc. --Gimmethegepgun 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that being blocked from editing does not prevent:

• Using Special:Emailuser to contact a bureaucrat
• Contacting a bureaucrat via other means
• Reading discussions on the wiki so as to be aware of current deliberations

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I'm one of those users who subscribes to the "the spirit of the policy trumps the letter of the policy" users. With that in mind however, there's an excellent reason to keep it vague. Simply put, it ensures that we never end up with a situation like GWW where the strict literalism used to interpret policy has had a severely negative impact on the Administrative structure. Besides, the fact of the matter is that having contributed to (or at least looked in on) all three GuildWars Wikis (GW, PvX, and GWW), it's rarely if ever that I see Admin abuses of power. Indeed, having been a Bureaucrat on PvX since its inception, I can tell you that a) We've never had a problem with abuses of power, and, to respond to another of your points, b) if an Admin abuses his or her power, it is much simpler than you seem to indicate to complain about Admin abuses. On PvX, you can complain to another Admin to get a decision overturned, or, if necessary, you can certainly complain to a Bureaucrat. As I recall, although this discussion wasn't so much about an abuse of power as it was the mindset of a certain Admin, all of the Bureaucrats and even a Sysop got involved in a 5 hour discussion to decide the fate of that Admin, a discussion in which two of the Bureaucrats were, for a period, deadset on his demotion. In fact, I think a lack of discretion impedes the ability of users to complain about Admin decisions since it prevents even the Bureaucrats from doing anything serious to overturn the decision (which is doubly true because they're too afraid to do so anyway). I would seriously protest the use of a phrase other than "common sense" or "discretion," simply put, that's all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less. Admin discretion extends to anything and everything that has to do with maintaining the Wiki. ArbComm should only get involved if a) a Sysop is involved, b) the user needs to be punished in a manner that prevents a Sysop from enforcing it, or c) the situation is completely deadlocked. Discretion is simply a tool that Administrators can employ to prevent policy (or the lack thereof) from interfering with the Wiki. And I see no reason to treat it any differently than you would a policy block. If you wanna contest, you email a Bureaucrat, nothing more, nothing less. All of these theoretical abuses that you've complained about, well, they really don't happen. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is like the word "rare" or "big". How rare is rare? How big is big? I'm not saying their every actions need to have some kind of fine print to justify them, I am saying weak words and lose terms are very vague, justifying an action with "common sense" or "in the best interests of the wiki" doesn't actually justify anything, but elude to some kind of reasoning which wasn't stated. Again I'm not asking for an endless list of cans and cants but the wording here is too weak. 58.110.142.135 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be also pointed out that contact via these means is subject to the same discretion the contact was prompted by. Blocking someone is like passing a policy, once it happens, even if there is a strong desire to change it, it is almost impossible to do. It is better to make sure it is done correctly in the first place and discretion works against that. 58.110.142.135 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution:Don't put people in positions of power who will abuse that power. It's that simple. It's worked for PvXwiki and it's worked for Guildwiki. And, just as important, make sure the people in power are not afraid to admit and correct mistakes. --Edru/QQ 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, what you say is theoretically true, but it doesn't work out that way. On PvX, we've had bans overturned based on emails that have been sent to me. Also, the beauty of common sense is that it's dictates can be left up to the common sense of the Admin in question. Simply put, this solution works. Besides, people don't become Sysops or Bureaucrats by not having the Wiki's best interests in mind, it's really not such a terrible thing to trust your Admins. And the more common sense built into policies, the less this should be an issue, period. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not simple, what if you consider a block unjust and several others agree with you but the admin doesn't and the issue is largely ignored, not even commented on, by anyone with any kind of power to do anything about it? Do you really think that much thought goes into the election of admin (for example here, not a single admin was elected from this wiki, some of them were grandfathered from a wiki made years ago). Look at the talk pages of the BC elections on GWW and compare it with the votes, less than half the voters commented on the election. Now look at the RFAs on the wiki, very few votes compared to the number of people who edit that wiki and even more of those votes participated in no discussion at all and even failed to cite reasons. The system is unavoidably biased to a core community on the wiki and this apathy is essentially what decides the outcome of elections. Saying "we elect admin to have discretion but we have no means set up to contest said discretion because we trust them" is an unhealthy stance. If they are exercising discretion appropriately then the outcome should be the same as trust but allowing people the right to contest possible unfair use of discretion. Don't view it as "Admins can't be trusted" view it as "if abuse does occur then we have a means to deal with it beyond a method which is vulnerable to the same problem which created the ban". I have proposed this instead of an outright ban on admin discretion. 58.110.142.135 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And then go look at a wiki with a system where sysops actually have some power(PvX or Guildwiki). Note that the sysops are selected much more carefully there. --Edru/QQ 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit that admins largely end up coming from the core population, but on GW as far as I know the admins never really abused power, and when one did other admins could fix the problems. I don't really have anything to go on about GWW since I don't know much about them except the Raptors incident, but frankly if there were problems I'd expect they were largely due to bogging down due to policies and people who didn't put in much thought when they handed out admin powers --Gimmethegepgun 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the question I posted on DE's talk page concerning what I believe is a fallacy claiming the GWW admin system is "weak and ineffective" and a "failure" so much to warrant this. 58.110.142.135 06:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since under this system, the election of Sysops is left to Bureaucrats, your entire post is rendered null and void (with some exceptions). Again, speaking from experience (i.e. the experience that comes with actually being a bureaucrat under what is essentially this system, I think it's fair to say that a good deal of though goes into whether or not Auron/I eventually promote a user. Skakid for instance had tremendous community support on his PvX RfA, he's extremely popular on PvX and undoubtedly a member of the elitist in-crowd, and yet, because of misgivings on how he would use that authority, he was not promoted. And, I can also tell you that if a voter doesn't leave a reason to support his vote, then that vote will often not "count for as much" when it comes to decision time. And I'm not sure what you mean by your first point. The final arbiters are the bureaucrats, if you email them, and they don't agree with you, well then a) I think it's safe to say that the Admin's actions were justified, and b) it's a moot point anyway, since there isn't a system in existence in which the bureaucrats don't inevitably get the final say (whether through ArbComm or whatever). Again, I've overturned bans based on the contents of a single email sent to me and me alone. In a non-draconian system, bureaucrats (indeed all Admins) are a) empowered to overturn erroneous actions, and b) actually more willing to do so. Yes, Wiki communities tend to promote good, experienced users (i.e. the members of the elect, elitist, oligarchical cabal), but that works when it comes time to decide Sysops. And I believe you're in fact misquoting my stance, such a mechanism does exist, it's known as emailing another Admin. Under this system, Sysops can check each other, and again, given that all Admins will arise from the dedicated elite, if we don't check their power to check each other, then, the practical nature of the system is that erroneous actions are overturned. On PvX, all Admins can remove votes, but, all Admins can also restore votes. Ask Shen for instance about the vote on the A/R PvE Interrupter. An erroneous decision was made to remove his vote, he talked to the Admin in question, the vote was restored. It really is as simple as that. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand the system, it appears I understand it better than you. In my statements I don't refer to PvX at all, I don't go there so I am unfamiliar with it - comparatively it is less appropriate to this wiki than GWW due to lack of official endorsement, dramatically different control set up, different scope and probably most importantly, a very different community. On the GWW system, the recent RFA for Auron was rejected by the BC with the reasoning stating that the oppose votes, not the BC opinions themselves, had good reasoning and valid points to oppose. They went on to state there was enough opposition with valid points of view to justify the rejection of Auron's RFA. While the end result is decided by the BC, I will quote Dirigible, "Our job as bureaucrats is to make sure that whatever the community wants to happen happens (as opposed to deciding what we believe is best for the community)." There is an undeniable group of GWW users who act it their own similair interests and influence discussions or precedent on the wiki. This is the reason we need checks and balances aside from "we trust them" as even people who were once held in high esteem and trusted greatly can disappoint us. This is merely a precaution to give people a fair go when it comes to "admin discretion". 58.110.142.135 07:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but we're not on GWW either, are we? You seem to fail to notice that the elements of this policy that you're discussing (i.e. autonomy for Sysops) never existed on GWW, thus, citing examples from GWW is not the least bit helpful, whereas experience on a Wiki with autonomous Sysops (i.e. someone who's seen the system first hand) is much much more helpful for understanding this policy. And, by extension, I would hazard to say that my experience on PvX is much more important to understanding how this policy would actually be enforced (and the outcomes of that enforcement) than your GWW knowledge. *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You admit to being inexperienced with the proposed system, yet you think that you are more qualified to comment on how it works better those with a great deal of experience with it? In reality, abuses of power don't happen in the draft's system. You can theorycraft all you want, but theory doesn't outweigh results. --Edru/QQ 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'd just like to point out that Edru, myself, Cory, and many, many others, have in fact seen it in practice (i.e. seen those results). *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

DE you have again cited another example where you are wrong about GWW policy. One of the recent blocks has been of the nature of what he justified "common sense". It has yet to be overturned and this precedent still stands. Either this block is justified by policy and you are wrong, or it is not and you are right and the admin has overstepped his bounds in this situation. I believe these examples do show that a system similair to this is being assumed without consensus by admin over there and the situation over there is demonstrating that contesting this kind of discretion in the cases which fall into the "grey areas" is incredibly difficult with the current back scratching and "ignore it and it will go away" mentality. Someone spends a couple of weeks in jail for something which isn't against the law and it is later admitted the arresters were overzealous in their arrest. What is it worth to tell the person who was in jail that the arresters were wrong? Edit Conflict: Well I've seen in practice where your proposed system doesn't work. 58.110.142.135 07:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, and I'll say this right off the bat, to say "Well I've seen in practice where your proposed system doesn't work," is entirely based on your own pre-conceived notion that what Cory did was wrong. Second of all, GWW is nothing akin to this policy, in fact, your statement proves that. Consider that you've argued that Cory stepped outsides the bounds of policy in his actions, on PvX (much like if this policy were to become official) autonomy is the name of the game, ask any user, they'll tell you how we run PvX. Now, ask any GWW, I can guarantee you that many will say that Admins are not autonomous. Besides, at best, you're talking about a single example and an incredibly recent phenomenon, whereas I'm citing months of experience on a Wiki that's been doing it from the beginning, and, if you include GW, a wiki that's been doing it for even longer than that. *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, bans have been overturned, autonimous bans which aren't justified have occurred on your wiki and it is up to the same discretion that is used to make it to overturn it, the only difference is an email isn't public and the person deciding to overturn it is someone different, but still likely a like minded individual so ingrained to the system they become bias to their admins. Tanaric's ban isn't the first ban which has been made without policy backing, and at least one other has been overturned (via proxy server to post on the wiki I belive), but others still remain in place. Don't ignore it because it is recent, now is the most crucial time to deal with it. This discussion is moving too far away from my initial point of admin discretion needs a check and balance and I don't believe this kind of discretion is sufficiently balanced by the email system. 58.110.142.135 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri) The only reason why policy exists is to state consensus. The order of the two is not policy creating consensus, but consensus creating policy. If consensus changes, policy must change to fit the new consensus. Likewise, if policy and consensus contradict, consensus wins out. Just because a system doesn't back every ban with policy doesn't mean that system is bad. A lack of action can be just as bad as too much action, when it comes to promoting the overall mission of a wiki: disruptive influences can be far more harmful in certain circumstances. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, in at least one case that I can think of, I overturned my own decision. Also, please do not presume to understand the circumstances that underly my comments. The bans I spoke of were perfectly in accord with policy, the one I'm thinking of for instance was a case in which there was an apparent case of sockpuppetry backed up by the fact that the users shared an IP. I banned the "puppet" account as per policy. When the user sent me an email explaining the situation, I overturned my ban. It was erroneous, yes, but not a misuse of my powers. My point was simply to demonstrate that you could, theoretically, get a ban overturned if it were a misuse of power in the same way. I can't think of a single ban that has been overturned because it was abusive, mainly because I've never seen an abusive ban. All of this also demonstrates why "but still likely a like minded individual so ingrained to the system they become bias to their admins" isn't true... you don't overturn your own decisions because you're biased towards yourself... And what does "[N]ow is the most crucial time to deal with it" have to with anything, I ignored it because it was fallacious, a reference to a Wiki on which policy is changing or contested is not the same as a reference to a Wiki where it's made clear that the Sysops are autonomous. Besides, email isn't the only recourse, you can talk to another Sysops, bring it to ArbComm (or really any individual Bureaucrat at that). The entire role of bureaucrats is to promote and demote, the reason to demote a sysop is because they're abusive (or I suppose inactive) there is literally a built in system for dealing with abusive sysops (which don't exist). *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear a lot about consensus, but where is consensus demonstrated if not in policy? I'm not saying the only place consensus can be formed is in policy, I am saying to claim consensus has been formed you need to demonstrate that somewhere. This is not a discussion about a decision on a wiki, it is a discussion which cited incidents on a wiki as examples. I am trying to prevent similair things from being able to happen here, not use this platform to promote an issue. It is only logical if I believe this admin "autonomy" is a bad thing when unchecked that I say so, state my reasoning and suggest measures to balance it, which is what I have done. 58.110.142.135 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I would question whether you've supported your claims, I'll say this: consensus can only exist within the scope of the debate, no policy or decision ever represents anything approaching true consensus as far as the entire Wiki is concerned. Keeping that in mind, the fact is that while policy represents a certain consensus established at a certain time, it may not represent the consensus that applies to a specific decision. People may not have intended the policy to function in a certain way, there may be extenuating circumstances, for whatever reason, policy may not represent any kind of consensus. Thus, recognizing that shades of grey do indeed exist, policy is not always applicable. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy should recognise areas where there are shades of grey, which is why I have not taken issue with "autonomy" as a whole, but unrestricted "autonomy" with no checks and balances aside from "private" emails which can easily be ignored. Consensus is irrelevent here, I don't know why Aiiane brought it up, this policy would allow admin action without consensus. what I am proposing is something which is closer to consensus because a check or balance to a block justified by admin discretion would need to be reviewed or at least have some kind of mitigation method when they take place. A good admin would use restraint and likely wouldn't make blocks in the area of discretion very often and they would never need to be overturned, so if my proposal for checks and balances is accepted and the admin act as you claim they will do, it will have very minimal if not no impact aside from this discussion. Acountability is a good thing. 58.110.142.135 08:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your only proposal has been to not give them any discretion, as far as I have seen. --Edru/QQ 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How is there not accountability in this proposal? Sysops are accountable to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are, due to their elected status, accountable to the wiki userbase; if they continually upset the userbase they won't be reelected. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would question right off the bat is if you sent an email to a bureaucrat (or conceivably all of the bureaucrats) do you truly believe that they'd ignore your email? If so, I must say, you've likely chosen some pretty poor bureaucrats. As I said, there are checks and balances, Bureaucrats are, in of themselves checks and balances, additionally, I'd point out that since users elect bureaucrats to one degree or another, is they're not responding to user emails regarding possible abuses... well then... they probably shouldn't stay in their seat for very long if nothing else. However, because we've yet again reached a point where all of this debate (at least between us) is leading nowhere, would you care to outline an actual policy that would outline your system of checks and balances rather than criticizing this policy for not including some abstract concept that only you seem to fully understand? *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know from experience that the BC are friendly with certain Sysops and likely bias from that friendship. Exactly how far does the "email a BC" method go? No-one but the BC sees it and they can respond saying "I think this ban is justified". BC are elected for 6 months, it is very hard to contest any admin decision or position once it has been made. Sysops should be accountable to the community not just BC. I know for a fact most of the admin and at least one BC dislike at least one user and some have expressed a desire for them to leave the wiki. This person does break policy in some instances but usually they are fine. This kind of adminship preconcieved opinions can lead to unpopular people to be unjustly have action taken against them, with hazy intangible reasonings such as "good of the wiki" or "spirit of the policy" or "common sense". Anything which exercises discretion should be accountable and reviewed. If you can agree with that I can propose how to do that, if not then there is no point. 58.110.142.135 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is now 4:16 am and I'm tired, I will yet again respectfully point out that this conversation, in its current form, has run its course (this isn't getting us anywhere and we're just running through the same routine over and over again, you have one view, I have another, there's little to no intersection and I somehow doubt that you'll ever convince me or vice versa). Thus, rather than continuing with what has become a rather insipid (and ultimately useless) discussion, would you please simply post what you see as an effective system of checks and balances? *Defiant Elements* +talk 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. BTW I, and I guess many others, would take over-banning over no-banning any day, wich is way some users go for Admin discretion despite any (possible) flaws.reanor 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sysops are appointed for life... Prolonged, unexcused absence, may also result in their demotion.

Which is saying what? Contradiction... RT | Talk 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is saying that there are no terms of service; however, despite this apparent tenure, if they fail to meet certain requirements (in this case, we expect a certain level of activity), their tenure is considered void and they may be demoted. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)