UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Reevaluation Procedure: Difference between revisions
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Reviewing all re-evaluation requests it seems the silver bullet for denying re-evaluations is a lack of activity. In such circumstances the shorter time is beneficial as it is a good acid test of whether the sop is editing or even aware of the process, and sometimes promotes a surge in activity. (The kick up the back side approach). --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 22:57, 26 June 2011 (BST) | Reviewing all re-evaluation requests it seems the silver bullet for denying re-evaluations is a lack of activity. In such circumstances the shorter time is beneficial as it is a good acid test of whether the sop is editing or even aware of the process, and sometimes promotes a surge in activity. (The kick up the back side approach). --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 22:57, 26 June 2011 (BST) | ||
I tend to think it's unnecessary as well. There's not really much need for discussion, since either a sysop will be re-approved, which usually happens in short order, or else they'll have a groundswell of opposition, which is almost always backed by ample evidence due to the high profile nature of their job. Promotions need longer, since vetting non-sysops is a more labor-intensive procedure. The users are rarely as high profile as the current sysops, which means that we can't vouch/dissuade in an informed manner without first going through their contributions. And, whereas the administration pages act as a repository of meaningful contributions for sysops which can be easily scanned when it comes time to judge them at A/RE, non-sysops have no such group of pages, meaning that we have to look around quite a bit more to get a feel for what type of person they are. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 03:41, 27 June 2011 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 02:41, 27 June 2011
For it
I see no need for complicating matters when can just keep the same discussion duration for both A/PM and A/RE. Besides, the one week more sys-ops would have by that policy would be meaningless compared to the 8 months of their usual term. Keep it simple, stupid. -- Spiderzed█ 14:40, 26 June 2011 (BST)
Meh.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 14:42, 26 June 2011 (BST)
Whaterver --hagnat 20:32, 26 June 2011 (BST)
Unnecessary
Reviewing all re-evaluation requests it seems the silver bullet for denying re-evaluations is a lack of activity. In such circumstances the shorter time is beneficial as it is a good acid test of whether the sop is editing or even aware of the process, and sometimes promotes a surge in activity. (The kick up the back side approach). --Rosslessness 22:57, 26 June 2011 (BST)
I tend to think it's unnecessary as well. There's not really much need for discussion, since either a sysop will be re-approved, which usually happens in short order, or else they'll have a groundswell of opposition, which is almost always backed by ample evidence due to the high profile nature of their job. Promotions need longer, since vetting non-sysops is a more labor-intensive procedure. The users are rarely as high profile as the current sysops, which means that we can't vouch/dissuade in an informed manner without first going through their contributions. And, whereas the administration pages act as a repository of meaningful contributions for sysops which can be easily scanned when it comes time to judge them at A/RE, non-sysops have no such group of pages, meaning that we have to look around quite a bit more to get a feel for what type of person they are. —Aichon— 03:41, 27 June 2011 (BST)
