CZ Talk:Referenda (Citizen-Initiated)/Managing Editor sysop powers, December 2011

Proposer comments
This issue is important since it concerns what we want the Managing Editor to be. I personally think that the office is little more than a figurehead role and one that has been sidelined since its inception. It should have teeth. But I also believe that we should not simply hand sysop rights, which allow the user to see personal information, to someone just because they are elected. This is why on the one hand, the proposal makes it slightly difficult to remove powers once granted, but on the other, it sets out conditions under which they can be used. If the proposal is not supported, fair enough, but I would hope to start a debate on why we should automatically deprive the ME of enforcing interim decisions and doing basic cleanup or anti-vandalism. It could always be resubmitted. John Stephenson 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of powers
Those who fear a 'rogue ME' using the powers inappropriately should note that I count six ways that this could be avoided: by the Management Council voting against granting the powers in the first place; by the Combined Councils voting to remove them at any time (it should be more difficult to remove them than via a simple MC decision, since the ME is directly elected); by the Combined Councils voting to remove the office-holder altogether; by the Constabulary banning the ME over some violation; by the community voting out the incumbent; and by the MC revising and restricting the powers as they are explicitly allowed to do according to the proposal. John Stephenson 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Management Council and interim decisions
There is a discussion here among the MC over ME rights, with the majority arguing that the ME should not be a sysop. (Note that of the five individuals, only one of them is still on the MC.) The argument was that the ME could make interim decisions but should go through the usual channels to seek enforcement, and there should be a "separation of powers". This was tested later when a blocked user appealed the ban and, once the MC had not heard the case after nearly two months, the ME ordered the block to be removed. The Chief Constable declined, provisionally citing the MC as the sole authority on the matter. The block was removed on a probationary basis two months later via an MC ruling, four months after it was applied. John Stephenson 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Other sysops
I would also like to point out that a few people have sysop rights or more on the main wiki without being Constables or technical staff (though the 'Sysop' link on these user group pages goes to the Constabulary), with the extent of their powers unclear. The Ombudsman, for instance, is a sysop, and the reason given is simply "to access Ombudsman pages", which are protected. If sysop rights for a relatively unimportant issue are permissible in such a case, I don't see why the ME shouldn't have them. I also cannot find any MC or other ruling about sysop powers for the Ombudsman. Perhaps all this could encourage a debate on exactly how people are awarded these powers, and what a sysop actually is. John Stephenson 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

History
Newcomers might wonder how we got here. Originally, we had an Editor-in-Chief, i.e. Larry Sanger, the founder of CZ. This role had sysop powers and Larry was able to take decisions over both management and content. The role was abolished when the Charter came into force, which was the culmination of a lengthy writing process by a committee which, after a while, became "completely dysfunctional". The discussions over the ME role were dominated by two people who have both since been banned for other reasons, one arguing for an Editor-in-Chief while the other sought to eliminate the office. (Actually, half the people involved in writing the Charter have either been banned or since left the project.) As a compromise, the ME role was created, with little real power, not even sysop rights. John Stephenson 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)