User talk:Defiant Elements/Policy and Adminship

To be honest, it's too much empty rhetoric and not enough content. The direction of the general sentiment is clear, but I've been unable to piece together a coherent system out of it. Backsword 13:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... ok... I'll try to write a second version which simply has the bare minimum of what the system should be like. I think it's all probably in there, but I have a tendency to rant :). *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For RfA's, I do like the idea of a final decision by the bureaucrats after seeing normal user voting. For bureaucrats, if I read correctly, you mentioned something about bureaucrats not obligated to do anything, and what happens in the situation. I suppose this could happen, but is unlikely to as you'd need to be on the wiki for a longtome to be a bureaucrat, and would likely be a b-crat to the best of your abilities. On the part about SIGN, GW2W:SIGN, and GWW:SIGN could be loosened, I suppose, to an extent. For GW2W:DELETE, it's worked great the way it is, there's no need to change it. You don't need to enter one of the "codes", for lack of a better term, you can simply say "pure vandalism" or "author request" or "typo in name" if you want. Calor (t) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as bureaucrats go, that's really my point, I mentioned that as an example simply to demonstrate that at a certain point, you have to trust your bureaucrats, and, you should be able to, since, they are going to be experienced, dedicated users. As far as DELETE goes, it's not hugely important to me one way or the other. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I like my version better: User:Tanaric/WikiBoss. —Tanaric 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that, benevolent dictatorships work quite well in my experience. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Basics

Ok, so I perhaps went a bit over the top with the ranting, so here's a list of 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 should arise naturally.
• Corollary: foundations for policies (e.g. Don't be a dick), not temporary policies.

Really everything else consists of a rant, rhetoric, or an attempt to prove why these things should come into effect, but, the above comprises the actual "system." *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with the subclause that bureaucrats should only exercise their final say on policy if no consensus emerges and the editors are deadlocked in meaningless conversation. —Tanaric 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added this to the article itself since it's probably somewhat more helpful than the rant which follows. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think you have a conflict there: You say the bcrats have the final word, but at the same time that sysops can ignore it, which makes it not so final. That goes to who have the real power, so it's not a side point. Backsword 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When do I say that the Sysops can ignore what Bureaucrats say? *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"They are not stringently bound by policy.". Backsword 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And how are policy and bureaucrats one and the same? Bureaucrats are the overseers of the Sysops who are inherently subordinated to the Bureaucrats. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, by you making it so. "Bureaucrats have the final say on policy" Backsword 11:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm... the fact that Bureaucrats can make policy and whether or not Sysops can ignore Bureaucrats are completely unrelated. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. If one is not mandatory, then it's policy in name but. Which means sysops, rather than bcrats, would have final say on the real policies. Backsword 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Backsword, Bcrats saying "Yes, this policy is ok" is not the same as Bcrats saying "This policy is perfect and sysops need to follow every letter in this policy and nothing more"? - anja 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. In a system where policy is plentiful and easy to make, there is no reason for bcrats to compromise, and as such, make rules they don't fully support. Any other situation would be left for a later time, when it became relevant. If you check, that's one of the stated motivations for this policy. My guess is that you peobably imagine policies as long documents, but in this system, most of them would be short statements, perhaps just a single sentence. Moreover, would it not be up to bcrats to decide which one of your two alternatives apply? If so, their word really is final. Backsword 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On an almost entirely unrelated note, I'd value the input of both of you on my culture poll. There's a tendency for selfselction to distort such things towards one group. 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)