This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the added section rather than here so that this portion is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: Rule passed without opposition. Forum still open for amendments. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised version

Following some useful consensus-building discussion, the proposed administrative autonomy rule has been revised:

Be it a matter of deletion, blocking, or interpretation of existing policy, no single member of the administration or bureaucracy may overturn another administrator's decision. Excepting an undeletion of an item with a clear canonical basis, reversal of an administrative decision will require a genuine good-faith effort to discuss the issue, in a timely manner, with the administrator whose decision is in question followed by a majority decision by available administrators either in IRC (by accepted Mofference voting procedures) or the administrators' noticeboard (by accepted Consensus Track procedures). The format and timing of these discussions may not be engineered to skew the vote.

This rule will then be codified in Wookieepedia:Administrative autonomy in precisely these words, no more, no less.

This is an admin-only, yea or nay vote.

For

1. Darth Culator ^(Talk) 12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. This one I can get behind. jSarek 12:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Per jSarek. Greyman^(Paratus) 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Havac 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Might as well. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. It would be nice to be trusted. Thefourdotelipsis 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Lord Hydronium 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Yay for more legislature. Cull Tremayne 02:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Yay? —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Against

Discussion

• I have a couple of questions about the policy: Since it includes "interpretations of policy", does that include "non-blocking actions" also? Here's what I mean: IP XYZ comes to Wookieepedia and writes "Leya is hawt" on the Leia Organa Solo page. If an admin slaps {{test3}} on that IP's talk page, and the IP miraculously stops, can another admin decide that the warning was insufficient and add a block?
• Does this include semi-protection? I've shielded articles to protect them against vandalism, and I've often forgot to unshield them later. I'd hate to make this a royal pain (i.e. protecting and unprotecting the current FA should not require an act of Parliament/Congress.) but if that's what we want, it's not a huge deal. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the current wording, I think the answers to both of those questions are yes. However, conflicts in those cases are probably better avoided by (a) having admins follow the blocking policy more strictly for one-time anonymous vandals (i.e. warn before blocking for most cases of minor vandalism), and (b) remembering not to protect most articles indefinitely (maybe someone should come up with a protection guideline for temporary lockdowns.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • jSarek actually brought this up in IRC before it came up here, and it just doesn't seem like it will be a major issue. I can't recall any time protecting a page has been a point of contention. If necessary, we'll put it up as an amendment. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but my mind is a bit jumbled right now. So yes, a "non-blocking" action is a matter for consultation before it's altered, and yes, semi-protection is considered a matter of consultation also? And I'm fine with both of those- especially the protection thing- that's small stuff, though I'd prefer a bit of leeway in that. Or maybe I should get better at reminding myself to unshield articles that I protect. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Self note: Clarification in IRC: "<Darth_Culator> Superseding warnings doesn't seem like an issue that would come up often. If an admin says "don't do that again or I'll block you" and then another admin blocks them before they do it again, then fine, unblock them. Then when the idiot inevitably does it again, he gets re-blocked five minutes later." "The way it's worded, unprotecting a page would require the consent of the admin who protected it. However, if a consensus was reached on the talk page and the admin who protected it didn't agree to abide by that, he would himself be in violation of Wookieepedia:Consensus." "It might be a good idea to formulate an amendment, then. As a general rule, I wouldn't really care about semi-protection." Thanks to Culator for the clarification. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the added section rather than here so that this portion is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: Consensus requires minor revisions; proposal resubmitted. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Original discussion

There has been a growing trend in recent months toward admins undermining other admins, to the point where certain people have chosen or nearly chosen to resign in disgust.

I would like to bring this issue out in the open, and make a rule about it. To end the political tug-of-war once and for all. Even if it doesn't pass, we shall see who does and who does not have a proper degree of respect for their fellow administrators.

We elect administrators for a reason: To ensure the smooth operation of Wookieepedia. When admins and bureaucrats undermine the decisions made by their colleagues, it creates anarchy. This needs to end.

The rule I propose is simple: Be it a matter of deletion, blocking, or interpretation of existing policy, no single member of the administration or bureaucracy may overturn another administrator's decision. Reversal of an administrative decision will require discussion with the administrator whose decision is in question followed by a majority decision by available administrators either in IRC (by accepted Mofference voting procedures) or the administrators' noticeboard (by accepted Consensus Track procedures). The format and timing of these discussions may not be engineered to skew the vote.

This rule will then be codified in Wookieepedia:Administrative autonomy in precisely these words, no more, no less.

This is an admin-only, yea or nay vote.

For

1. Darth Culator ^(Talk) 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

   Imperialles 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Seriously, who's going to vote against this? Cull Tremayne 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
3. SFH 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
4. "Recent months"? It's been going on a lot longer than that... StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Per the Hiromi. Havac 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
6. With added revisions. Riffsyphon1024 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

   But those revisions haven't been added yet. Do you want us to adopt this policy, then have a second vote to revise it? —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Against

• Since it seems we're making no headway towards making revisions, I'm voting against this for the time being. I'll strike my vote if and when we make the needed adjustments. jSarek 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Per jSarek. - Lord Hydronium 04:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Per jSarek. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Though I like the policy in principle, I have a couple of concerns I think need to be addressed before I can vote in favor of it. First, if the offending administrator becomes unavailable for any reason, the requirement to discuss the decision with them first before correcting their error becomes impossible until they return; when its a matter of importance, even a few days away can be a big problem, and we've had several admins go completely AWOL for months (and counting!) at a time. A suggested revision would be "Reversal of an administrative decision will require a good-faith effort to contact and discuss, in a timely manner, the decision with the administrator whose decision is in question, followed by a majority decision . . ." Secondly, including "deletion" in the policy makes correcting simple matters of canon a voting issue. If I delete X article because it looks like egregious fanwank to me, and Culator undeletes it with an edit summary of "As wankarific as it sounds, X is indeed canon, from pg. xx of Source Y," this shouldn't require a vote of any sort. Suggest removing "deletion" from the policy altogether, unless this is meant to address some particular abuse I'm not seeing, in which case alternate wording of some sort should be considered. jSarek 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The specific wording was carefully chosen. Since some admins have less interest in the stated goals of Wookieepedia than the defense of fanoneers, this wording is designed to prevent a wheel war when the needs of Wookieepedia inevitably conflict with the needs of MyWookieeSpace. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This proposal would give those admins equal autonomy. If a "fanoneer" makes a decision you don't like and then vanishes for a week, then you won't be able to fix that decision for a week. Is that what you want? As for the deletion problem, there still should be some provision for reverting deletion of a perfectly canon article without resorting to admin vote. Anyway, if your goal is to hamstring a specific admin or group of admins, I suggest taking them to Requests for removal of user rights and get them divested of administrative powers altogether, rather than trying to (dare I use the cliche?) game the system by crafting a policy designed to strengthen your position vis-a-vis theirs. jSarek 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Did jSarek even mention fanoneers there? Because I missed it. I also resent the implication that anyone who doesn't vote for this policy, or who disagrees with other administrators, "does not have a proper degree of respect for their fellow administrators" or has "less interest in the stated goals of Wookieepedia than the defense of fanoneers." I, for one, only voted against you on those discussions because I didn't think an absolute ban on newbies coming online and pretending to be Mandalorians was necessary (so long as they don't spend too much time at it, and either go on to actually edit articles or head off to some other corner of the net.) Of course, if this does pass as policy, I'll abide by it: this discussion would establish that this is what the community of administrators wants. Also, regardless of any other considerations, I'd support the policy with jSarek's suggested revision. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd agree there needs to be some provision for admin disappearances, though I'd suggest including as a stand-in someone who agrees with the disappearing admin's position to hash out whatever needs to be hashed out in discussion and represent their position. I'd also argue a rewording to allow undoing a deletion only with a "very clear canonical basis". That would, I hope, satisfy both parties. Havac 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I entirely agree with jSarek, Havac, and Silly Dan on all their points on corollaries that should be added/changed to the policy. Should a revised version incorporating those alterations be put up to an admin vote, I'd be happy to support it. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)