User talk:Dirigible/Admins

Since ArbComm will be the base of power, I'm hoping you could clarify "can be called to review the admins' actions in case of disagreement". Who is it that needs to disagree in order for ArbComm to act? Also, you mention RfAs, will these be direct decrees from ArbComm or some more formal process? Backsword 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with how you put that, "Since ArbComm will be the base of power...". Community consensus is the base of power, the ArbComm is simply one of the tools that this consensus uses to keep the admins under check. Other tools of this kind are elections/RfAs, through which the community chooses these admins in the first place, and reconfirmations.

What I'm trying to suggest in this proposal, is that we give admins that same freedom they have on other wikis such as GW/PvX, just make sure they can be held accountable for what they do. So Tanaric doesn't get to violate NPA and get away with blocking himself for a day. So if a sysop bans me because he has a personal grudge and the other admins don't care enough or are too friendly with him to even discuss the situation, I can still do something about it (take it to the ArbComm, see what they have to say). Honestly, I expect this admin-focused ArbComm would accept cases far more rarely than we've been doing on GWW, since I do believe that the admins will be able to act fairly and reasonably. It's just a checks-and-balances system, really. Something like benevolent dictator admins, but with a way for the community to make sure they remain benevolent.

The RfAs/elections would still be based directly on community input, with the bureaucrats using their discretion to make sure that consensus isn't being skewed, and such. --Dirigible

Sorry for the late response, missed it in the flurry of new proposals. You're right about the wording, I didn't mean to imply that I thought they would be the only ones making final choices.

Other than that, I see some problems with your assumptions. Admin's would be pure enforcers, as ArbComm could intervene whenever they disagree, which would be much more frequent than GWWs old system, as preexisting policy dealt with most such cases beforehand there. With the long term relative to the lifespan of a wiki and a contributers stay in the community (assuming they would be far from new when becoming arbitrators) they'd be pretty much free to do anything they liked. However; I do realise their power would be limited by the RfAs. Thus I was wrong to indicate that they'd be the only power; the community would have a lot of say too, and in practice there would be complex interactions between ArbComm and the community as a whole to determine policy.

As such, how RfA happens would be of high importance. If ArbComm is not making them, I presume you have something more like what exists on GWW in mind? That would make the system more aof a representative one. 10:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note, first putting it as "Community consensus" and then as "dictator admins" is a tad bit confuising. Backsword 10:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)