UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Reevaluations

Open for discussion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:29, 22 July 2009 (BST)

So basically

A kind of re-tooling of the promotions system? I think that's a great way to go about it - bureaucrats are supposedly trusted even more than sysops and it eliminates almost all of the concerns people were raising over the other one. --Cyberbob 01:32, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Yup. You still have the guidelines for the regular users, and I just applied that system to the sysops. That gets your regular evaluations and should stem any trust arguments. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:42, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As Bob. This lets the community have a say about how a sysop is doing without having to rely on a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:45, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Timing

I think 6 months is too often. We'll be having constant reevaluations, often multiple ones going at the same time. I'd prefer at least every 12 month, with the sysop having the option to go early at any time before that if they wish -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:13 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think 6 months is okay, but we do need to spread them out. Each period is six months. The initial round of reviews starts with the oldest 'op, then a one month period until the next 'op goes? That way everyone gets a review in due time, but it's not all clustered together.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:16, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You have ten at the moment who would be reviewable. You could separate them out to do one a month until each sysop has their review. The thing would be that you'd have some overlap with it. We'll have to put something i about a crat who is just coming out of being a crat (which I would assume they would be re-evaluated at six months from losing the crat position). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds fine - might want to make that clear in the policy (about reevaluations of crats.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:40, 22 July 2009 (BST)

One a year could be workable. You have 10 up for review, and you could effectively assign people months. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The thing I like about allowing a sysop some latitude to choose their own timing (by going early) though, is that they can choose a time when they haven't been involved in a drama session, so that their review will be based on their long term performance, rather than the mood at the time. The wiki goes through periods where the admins as a whole get glowing recommendations, and others where they're seen as failing as a group, to say nothing of the occasional stuff up, or piece of stupidity by individuals, even if they are, on the whole, good sysops. Reviews should be held in calm circumstances, if possible, so the evaluation isn't based on the emotion of the time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:38 22 July 2009 (BST)

Unnecessary. The decision is not a vote.... 'Crats are elected because, supposedly, they can address the merits of promotions/demotion objectively. So everyone tells me....

And as per my suggestion earlier... I support 6 months, a year is an eternity on this wiki, 6 months is appropriate. However, I also say the commenting period should only be 1 week b/c the sysop has already been approved, this is a review not a new nomination. --WanYao 03:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps an initial 6 months evaluation, then yearly? Because users can change after being promoted, but they don't often change their style much after they have settled in. I just don't want to see the wiki flooded with even more admin drama by having continuous promotion/reevaluation drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:54 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think you'll need a compromise somewhere if you want that to work, Box, because 12 months is a very long time, far to long in my opinion. Maybe 6-8 months? --ϑϑℜ 04:07, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'll be more inclined to agree with a year then six months (per Boxy's reasoning.) We don't need constant renewal drama (although I don't really have much of a problem with six months - I just think a year will be better.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:40, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think 6 months is a bit too long.... maybe 4 months... or we could have an election every 6 months an a renewal every 3 months --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 03:34, 22 July 2009 (BST)

6 months is fine, don't be a git --WanYao 03:36, 22 July 2009 (BST)

=P Whats a git? --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 03:37, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Don't create drama for drama's sake, that's all. --WanYao 13:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Truly this is supreme irony. --Cyberbob 16:56, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Some thoughts on the process. Bulleted for ease of viewing.

• 6 months is too frequent while 12 months seems to be considered too long... how about split the difference and call it 9 months?
• I like the idea of limiting the comments period to just 7 days as well, most of the useful stuff has been said by then anyway
• A Crats term before evaluation should include the time they have been in office but that election should be regarded as having been their last evaluation.
• Should the review period be pushed back beyond the currently favoured 6 months then I would agree with Boxy that sysops should be able to launch the appraisal early.
• Passing a sysop's review against clear community backlash should be misconductable with a punishment of immediate loss of crathood (if not full demotion) if found guilty. I can't see this happening but it should be clear that it is frowned upon without good reason.
• If passed I would suggest 1 sysop a week is evaluated until all have been done, starting with the longest standing. I would also say that there should never be more than 2 evaluations going on at the same time.

Thats about it really for now...--Honestmistake 16:52, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Wording

Point one looks screwy. "Significant time within the community. - We define this as at least 3 months since the candidate's last edit." What are you trying to say? Right now it seems to imply that you have to be inactive for three months.--Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:46, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'll admit I'm a little confused about this point in the context of re-evaluation aswell... --ϑϑℜ 04:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I was trying to stick with the original text as much as possible. It now reads: "Significant time within the community as a sysop. - We define this as the candidate has made at least one edit in the at least 3 months." It still sounds rough, and I'd like it to be as close to the original guidelines verbiage as possible. I don't have much time today to mess with extra stuff, but I'll keep mulling it over in the back of my head while I am at work today. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:55, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Being pedantic

Sysop Reevaluations said:

If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria.

Also remove the significant time within the community header - it's not really needed since after four months a sysop will be demoted anyway. It just seems a bit pointless to have the header there. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:43, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Crat Elections

What if someone's just been promoted to crat? Surely thats a vote of trust. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:55, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The policy summary wrote:

* Current bureaucrats are exempt from this review process due to their own review process.

Does that answer your question? :p --Cyberbob 09:58, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Thats what I like about you bob. You save me having to read. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I came very very close to posting the exact same question you did but by pure chance I spotted that line out of the corner of my eye. --Cyberbob 10:35, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I assumed it would be the same as Wan's, which I think was discussed under the same circumstances, so yes. I do have one issue though... I'm assuming that the Crats will have the 6 months (or however long the revaluations are between) added onto their term as Crat? Otherwise a crat would have a good chance of their term running through their evaluation. My only concern is, after 2 or so Crat terms, should the crat now be automatically cycled? If being a crat means the user is exempt from evaluation without question, well, their may be an issue with meatpuppetry being used to push unpopular sysops into crat by a minority, or even over a long term to avoid evaluation. I'm just poking around as possible weaknesses so we can discuss. Does anyone see this as a potential issue? --ϑϑℜ 14:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)

It's a potential issue but an unlikely one. I don't like the idea of crats reviewing crats (hint there, SA ;),) as it falls on one user to make the decision on a promontion case not the usual two. Less collective experience, etc. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:38, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You know what might be a better idea?

Instead of making a policy that wastes people's time like Karek explained the last time this came up: (It wastes the communities time having them vote on something for no reason. It's a crat decision then the crats should decide it, not have a popular opinion poll before they do.--Karek 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)) Why not just every 6 months put up Grim's old page of Which Sysops do you trust? and let that flame war/drama fest burn for 2 weeks? That should be enough to get it out of everyone's system. I'm semi-serious here. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:59, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As long as we can have the comments on grim framed at the top of the page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I strongly doubt that anyone would see the opportunity to either show their support for a sysop they think does a good job or to express their disgruntlement with a sysop they think is doing a bad job as a waste of time. :P
Shortening the vote period to one week instead of two as someone (Wan?) suggested above would allow most people to get their "votes" in while not taking up too much time. Besides - I'm sure that the crats would take what the community says into account. --Cyberbob 16:10, 22 July 2009 (BST)

They haven't in the past when it comes to promotions or do I have to summon the bitter one again?  :) --– Nubis ^NWO 19:53, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Well technically they were acting in accordance with the "will of the community" - pretty much the only people who were against him being promoted were the sysops IIRC. --Cyberbob 20:02, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I second this. --ϑϑℜ 17:14, 22 July 2009 (BST)

HEY

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

--Orange Talk 16:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

This is by far the less dramariffic of the two evaluation policies ;p --Cyberbob 16:58, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, this is the most positive thing going through the wiki at the moment. --ϑϑℜ 17:02, 22 July 2009 (BST)