Editing Operational distinction

An '''operational distinction''' is something that is effectively undisputed by all POVs, and is probably basic to the technology of communication itself.  Some "classes of Governing Operational distinction proposed" in early 2002 as "existing in the [[Wikipedia]] project":

*ignore - read the title, but don't read the article, because of title 
*read - read or skim the article, but don't make any comment or change 
*talk - add some comment in talk, whether or not you've read the article 
*edit - boldly alter the article content and purpose 
*page redirect - a name is redirect to be "equal to" another name 
*page rename - a page is renamed 
*page revert - a page is reverted 
*page lock - a page is locked 
*IP ban - an IP number is banned 
*The mailing list is reviewed. 
*The mailing list is joined. 
*The mailing list is notified that an editor appears irresponsible in editing and should be watched closely. 
*The owner, Mr. Jimbo Wales, is notified (typically via the mailing list) that an alleged irresponsible editor is noncooperative and/or offensive in response to consensus building efforts from other established editors. 
*New site/software features and procedures are proposed for discussion. 
*Existing procedures and features are discussed for evaluation and possible modification. 

Since these events either happen, or do not happen, on a yes/no dualistic binary basis, a single distinction (whether to do it or not) applies to each. Regardless of any [[ontological distinction]] which is assumed or claimed to apply, the Operational distinction makes a real event occur, e.g. you may ignore the article "because a [[troll wrote]] it". However, first you must determine who is a troll, else you cannot apply this distinction to take an action!

Any system of [[wiki governance]] must discover what these distinctions are, by examining the [[best cases]] and [[worst cases]] of their actual use in practice. When disputes arise regarding these distinctions, which affect [[naming convention]]s, assumptions regarding [[sysop power structure|control]] and [[authorship]], and other fundamentals, each discussed as a [[Governing Ontological distinction]], it is ultimately resolved by reference to one or more '''Governing Operational'''"  in a process that includes them. 

Accordingly, while one may ignore the Ontological, one may not ignore the Operational, as these are the actual regulatory actions enforced by [[w:fiat]], e.g. sysop status, Militia approval, [[GodKing]] [[w:monarchy]], or whatever.