User:Defiant Elements/Policy and Adminship

Warning

This rant is not for the faint of heart; however, failure to respond to this rant may result in it being posted in all of it's glory on the Policy talk page. Consider yourself warned. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Basics

• Guidelines, not policies.
• Discretion, common sense, and consensus as the foundation for decisions.
• Increased discretion for bureaucrats and sysops.
• Sysops retain their role as janitors but with added discretion. They are not stringently bound by policy.
• Bureaucrats have the final say on policy, RfAs, and, if RfBs are absolutely necessary, then those as well. They are expected to consider the advice of the sysops as well as the community at large. They also have all of the duties of a sysop.
• Content before policies
• Corollary: policies will, and should, arise naturally.
• Corollary: foundations for policies (e.g. Don't be a dick), not temporary policies.

Introduction

To the users, don't be afraid to trust your administrators. To the administrators, don't be afraid to exercise your common sense via the discretion that will (hopefully) be afforded you on this Wiki. There has been some talk about a "shift in mentality" that some users advocate, in my opinion, the most important aspect of that paradigm shift needs to be a a shift away from overly-restrictive and unnecessarily bureaucratic policies and a shift towards guidelines that allow both the users and the administrators to exercise common sense. Policies should generally exist to regulate users (e.g. NPA), they should not exist to regulate content, SIGN for instance should be a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, policies should not attempt to cover every eventuality, instead, Administrators should be given reasonable leeway to exercise the policy as they see fit. Administrative actions should generally reflect the will of the consensus, they should not be a strict reflection of policy. In a perfect world, no policies would need to exist, the administrators would, through a combination of consensus and common sense, make the "correct" decision without needing to consult a policy. Whether or not that dream could actually be realized, while administrators sometimes make poor decisions, they should inherently be users that the community trusts enough to use their common sense. An administrator shouldn't hinge on who has the most edits or who watches recent changes most closely, because when you get right down to it, everyone is qualified to be a Sysop if a Sysop is simply a janitor. (Using PvX as an example yet again) when I'm looking at an RfA, sure, I'm looking for generally well-liked, active contributors, but what I really want to see is someone whose contributions reflect more than simple janitorial dedication, I want to see someone who has demonstrated that they can be trusted to actually improve the Wiki.

Bureaucrats

A only concrete "job" that a bureaucrat has is to manage user rights. But why would you go through the trouble of electing bureaucrats (theoretically the creme de la creme of Wiki users) if they cannot actually exercise that power except when consensus tells them it's all right to do so? Anyone is qualified to push a button when told to do so, so what's the point? Don't get me wrong, I'm against the election of bureaucrats by simple consensus in the first place, but once elected, it appears to me that under the GWW system, with the exception of ArbComm authority, Bureaucrats cannot exercise their user granted authority except when another vote by the users tells them it's ok to do so. It seems to defeat the purpose of the role.

Bureaucrats are generally well-respected contributors, often sysops, they have consistently shown themselves to be among the most dedicated (and likely among the smartest) contributors, and this view has been vetted by the voters who have put them in office. They've been elected for two purposes (assuming ArbComm exists on this Wiki), and they should be given the authority to actually exercise that authority (I realize I'm beating a dead horse, but I can't stress this point enough). They should have the final say in Sysop and Bureaucrat elections, and, they should have authority outside of ArbComm to mediate disputes. It should also be kept in mind that the view held by the consensus is not always correct, sure, if the absolutely overwhelming majority is against a decision, it may not be the right one; however, bureaucrats should be insulated to at least some degree from the will of the plurality. Bureaucrats are in a unique position to know what's best for the Wiki, not only are they among the most experienced users, and not only have they been elected to make these very decisions, but, they are also the one's best able to understand the job and the decisions made by other bureaucrats.

Finally, it should be taken under consideration (largely for the reasons mentioned above) that bureaucrats be given the final say when it comes to policy (although like in the case of RfAs, this should generally be done at the consent of the Sysops and with consensus). Assuming consensus will always yield the right decision, bureaucrats would be ill-advised for a number of reasons from going against the consensus. Yes, it happens, and I'm sure people will be more than willing to cite a number of examples, but, in my experience, when it comes down to it, bureaucrats will overwhelmingly side with the majority, they're smart and they're experienced, if the consensus is correct, how often do we expect the bureaucrats to be going against consensus and making the "wrong" decision?

Election, of

Ok, so all of this is begging the question, then how should bureaucrats be elected? The philosophy behind periodic elections seems to be that it prevents any one individual from consolidating power despite the opposition of the general user base. Fine, under the assumption that elections are strictly necessary (and again, I don't see why they are -- bureaucrats shouldn't be stripped of power unless they actually do something wrong) I am strongly opposed to a straight-out vote. Also, I think it should be kept in mind that in a system in which the other bureaucrats wouldn't step in and demote a bureaucrat that is universally disliked by the community, the bureaucrats are under no necessary onus to actually enforce the elections I suppose... but... I've diverged. So, the system as I envision it would consist of elections only as necessary (i.e. a structure in which Bureaucrats can be recalled when they start doing something wrong or when a candidate is nominated for an RfB and gains enough support to hold a recall) and in which it is the other bureaucrats (the one's who are not up for election) who get the final say with the advice and (one would hope) consent of the sysops and generally with the consensus of a poll in which the entire user base would be allowed to vote in. It is the bureaucrats (and the sysops) who are in the best place to understand who would make a good bureaucrat, and, the fact is, that the bureaucrats are simply more likely to have a better grasp of the "bigger picture."

One other more minor thing I'd like to see is that people be required to add a comment when voting. One problem with straight voting is some people's votes are based on false assumptions. For instance, on PvX, we explicitly state that votes that state that "There is no need for another Sysop at this time" or something along those lines shouldn't be added because RfAs are essentially a dynamic list that keeps track of candidates for when a new sysop is needed. Under PvX's system, that vote wouldn't end up really counting for anything. And, if bureaucrats are making the decision, then it's much more helpful (as far as I'm concerned) from the bureaucrats perspective if there is a bit of reasoning along with the vote. This applies to all elections I guess, not just RfBs specifically.

Sysops

Sysops are not simply janitors. While they may not possess the skills necessary to be a bureaucrat, they are inevitably among the most elite users (yes, wikis are oligarchical meritocracies). As stated previously, their are tons and tons of users fit to be janitors, but, they're not Sysops. There's a reason behind that, by voting in favor of a Sysop, users are putting their trust in that Sysop and (again engaging in my favorite activity of beating a dead horse) policy should reflect that trust. Preventing unnecessary bureaucracy in policies is extremely important, and a big aspect of that is making policies that aren't black and white, they leave room for consensus on the part of both the Admins and the users.

Election, of

I've said it before, bureaucrats should be given the final say, they should act on the advice of the users and the sysops. If there is an overwhelming majority for or against, it should be an obvious decision (although exceptions do exist -- allowing bureaucrats the final say goes a long way towards preventing "elections" from becoming popularity contests), and if it's a close call, then who better to decide than the bureaucrats and the admins.

Temporary policies

Temporary policies have a nasty habit of turning out to be permanent. Beyond which, attempting to specifically define a problem before that problem arises tends to lead to issues. More general "Disruption" policies from which all user-related policies stem are in keeping with a shift towards guidelines and discretion, besides which, do you build a building starting with the foundation or the roof? No one's gonna disagree with "Disruption," it's a solid foundation, and there's no need to start building the roof just yet.