Yes, subjectivity is the thing; I kept it as a “should” to spare people from the agonising they’d have to do over a borderline proposal if the rule said “must”. It also means that if a fix proposal sneaks a scam in, or accidentally makes a text edit that changes a rule’s meaning, it was still legal to vote for it.

I’m not sure weaselly “I know I’m abusing this but” proposals are a problem - if they work, then you’ve got a quorum approving of weaselly proposals and you might as well propose a rule change to that effect.

Giving admins a rule-lawyer bullet which can veto any reformattings they don’t like is a little risky. But it may be a good balance for the fact that Cleanup Proposals are likely to get less scrutiny.

if so many people were weaseling proposals from cleanup proposals then why not just add more default proposal slots and remove the Cleanup tag at that point?

yes I suppose that bullet could be a problem. keeping admins to vote against a cleanup proposal from saying “this isn’t a small change” when it is a small change and just failing it on bad principles; however if an admin were to do that then they probably are not fit to be an admin.

I prefer having it be in the hands of the consensus.

If its controversial, use a full proposal slot.
Arguably, these things could/should be calls for judgement anyways.

[derrick] I was thinking of things which weren’t urgent enough to be considered a CfJ, but which we should get around to fixing at some point to make gameplay clearer - like the chaotically numbered bullet list which didn’t break anything, but was awkward to continue working around. Or the “Apes” rule being three rules one after the other and making it harder to casually say things like “in the bulleted list in rule X”.