UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Reevaluation Procedure

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Overview

The idea, specifically, is extending the one week of discussion to two weeks, much like other promotion procedures like sysops bids and crat elections. Making it two weeks does no harm, and can easily lead to more input of more users. Seeing as the sysops position is a valuable one, more input can only benefit both the community and the re-evaluation candidate at hand, not to mention making it more easier for crats to make a well-rounded decision.

Suggested Change

Current policy, changes outlined in red and strikes

Once the candidate has reached their eight month mark from their promotion to sysop or put themselves up for re-evaluation (see below), the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for continuing to be a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for one week two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate. The reason for only one week for discussions is due to the high-profile nature of the sysops, and most users should be familiar with them.

Once the one week is up two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be retained in their position should it appear that the community is willing to continue to accept them as a System Operator. In the event that the decision is negative, then the sysop will be demoted back to regular user status, where after a month's time, the user can re-submit themselves for promotion.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. Author vote. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:27, 2 July 2011 (BST)
  2. It will streamline closely related procedures and cut down on special rules. Not a big change, but still a good change. -- Spiderzed 22:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)
  3. This is always going to come down to an opinion thing, and 1 week was really necessary at the time to get through several back-to-back bids, but now we have the opportunity to do them one at a time and while I think the change will bring little difference, I don't have any issue with changing it to 2 weeks and think it may be the better option. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:13, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  4. Mis is wrong, we saw that in comments from DDRs bid.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:20, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  5. Consistency is good. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 06:47, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  6. Suppose it encourages discussion, I suppose. Suppose, supposing. To suppose. --  AHLGTG 06:59, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  7. I have no issue with it. I think it is a good, harmless idea.Moodie  Talk  Contributions 06:19, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Against

  1. Don't really see the point of it, the week-long version has yet to ever be too short. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:27, 2 July 2011 (BST)
  2. I'd actually prefer if we could somehow make them all one week instead of two, but I understand that most of the others votes really do need two weeks in order to accommodate the research and discussion that sometimes takes place. A/RE has never had that issue. Aichon 23:05, 2 July 2011 (BST)
  3. The shorter time for reevaluations was to try to limit the time we spent "naval gazing" (ie. talking about running the wiki instead of actually doing the running). We should try as much as possible to limit the time we spend on promotions and demotions and reevaluations. And this is the one area we can do it without interferring with users need to have time to evaluate the candidate, because the person being reevaluated is already a sysop, and we are all "evaluated" on every decision we make throughout the term. Promotions (to sysop and crat) may need more time to discuss and evaluate because it is considering users for jobs that they often have no track record in -- boxy 09:42, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  4. Seems like change for changes sake and i can't honestly see any benefit from it. --Honestmistake 19:17, 3 July 2011 (BST)
  5. as box and Honest -- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!   אמת 11:56, 4 July 2011 (bst)

Result

This policy has failed to garner the necessary number of votes to pass. Aichon 18:50, 18 July 2011 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements