Hmm… should Revisions Allowed be the default, in this situation?

It seems to have been useful so far, but it’s new enough that we’re still evaluating it, which is why it’s still a Building Block. I think that now there’s no longer an edit window, we probably want to either make it a default or move it to core – and in the former case we don’t want to repeal the definition of defaults.

(The “Some rules on the Building Blocks page are listed as being Recommended” is a little concerning, though, because as far as I can tell it’s simply a false statement. I can see a potential argument that it may have caused the repeal of Edit Window to have been illegally adminned, due to producing an invalid state of the Building Blocks page.)

“it may have caused the repeal of Edit Window to have been illegally adminned, due to producing an invalid state of the Building Blocks page”

Is that even a thing? I don’t see anywhere in the ruleset that adminning a Proposal is required to result in a ruleset that is not contradictory. If it does result in a contradictory ruleset, then that part of the ruleset in conflict becomes ambiguous until resolved by another Proposal or CfJ. I don’t think it makes the adminning illegal, though.

The ruleset is pretty clear that resolving a Proposal requires the admin to follow the instructions as written, regardless of their consequences, unless carrying out that instruction conflicts with an existing rule per the Prioritisation rules.

The instruction for the admin to follow here would have been “repeal the last remaining Recommended rule” while the ruleset was effectively saying “there must always be at least one Recommended rule” - has the admin reached a step which cannot be applied? I’m not sure the ruleset would be treated that differently to any other piece of gamestate, in that regard.