Oppose This proposal comes from a distorted vision of the role. Everybody is allowed to "be bold", and consensus is a wide applied practice. Moreover, generally sysops involved in a community discussion (e.g. a deletion request) do not make the final decision themselves. If you're unhappy with a sysop interpretation of the rules, there are dedicated discussion pages for that. --Ruthven(msg)03:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any distorted vision. A "technical role" is a role which can be automated and is executed in the same way regardless of who is the executor. Instead, the same task can be executed by sysops very differently: it's not uncommon that one sysop sees enough consensus to delete a page, another sees consensus to keep it. This means the role is not merely technical; it includes taking decisions. I know it's hard to acknowledge it, particularly when you're a sysop, but this is a fact. Moreover, the fact that sysops hold both executive and judiciary powers causes them to be self-referential group, especially in small communities: admins are almost always elected by admins, confirmed by admins, judged by admins. They know each other like people in a small village and see only the needs of their small village. Separation of powers has worked for centuries in every liberal society, I don't see why it shouldn't work there. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about?17:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal comes from a distorted vision of the role. Everybody is allowed to "be bold", and consensus is a wide applied practice. Moreover, generally sysops involved in a community discussion (e.g. a deletion request) do not make the final decision themselves. If you're unhappy with a sysop interpretation of the rules, there are dedicated discussion pages for that. --Ruthven (msg) 03:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
