UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Automatic Sysop Cycling

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Overview

One Sysop position will come up for revierw by the wiki community every 3 months, in rotation. Currently, this will allow for a complete cycle of all of the sysops (minus Bureaucrats and Kevan's admin accounts) every two years.

Any Sysop who goes inactive on the wiki for 3 full months will automatically be demoted back to regular user status.

The proposed rules

Rules for starting a review

  1. A Sysop that hasn't made a single edit in three months is considered as inactive and forfeits his status as sysop.
  2. After 3 months an election is called for the sysop position longest without an review.
  3. If, for any reason, an individual sysop position hasn't faced a review after 24 months, then a review is called after that period.
  4. The review ends after two weeks wiki time counting from the when the review is started.
  5. Current bureaucrats are exempt from the review process, as they are subject to their own review process.

Rules concerning the review

The same rule for System Operator Requests apply.

The user is subject to a community discussion concerning the sysop. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for retention as a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.

Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrat 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 keep their position should it appear that the community is willing to continue to accept them as a System Operator.

Summary

This policy creates the requirement for sysops to not only have an active role in the community (much like Bureaucrats have to), but creates a system for the community to reaffirm the trust in the sysop:

  • One Sysop position will come up for review by the wiki community every 3 months, in rotation.
  • Any Sysop who goes inactive on the wiki for 3 full months will automatically be demoted back to general user status.
  • Current bureaucrats are exempt from this review process due to their own review process.

This policy does not effect any account that Kevan may use as a wiki admin account.

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. For - Because accountability is always good.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. For - Author Vote. --Akule School's in session. 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. with great power, yadda yadda yadda... resposiblity..... yadda yadda... profit--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. For - After considering some of the latest events (including a great Sysop such as Vista being driven off the wiki) I'd rather have this than nothing. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. For - I think we can trust that the community will not turn this into a complete, drama filled popularity contest.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. For - As Mr. Gnome. --Kikashie ELT 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. For - Vive democracy. MordredMalTel 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. For - I think it is a good policy.--Labine50 MEMS | MHG 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. For - Two words: Accountability. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to Talk Page. – Nubis 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. For - Time to get me some meatpuppets.--Wooty 05:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to Talk Page. – Nubis 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. For - Yeah why not. DanceDanceRevolution 11:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. For - Accountability is important, and while this of course this system has its weaknesses, the question isn't "Is this perfect?" but "Is this better than the current system?", and I think it is. There's a lot of bad practices Misconduct can't ever even hope to catch, and a voting system would help. Sysops making bad decisions can be really bad for the wiki, worse than vandalism, and this should reduce the opportunity for that. Oh, and before someone brings this up, I don't think "right but unpopular" choices are at all a common occurrence. --Toejam 14:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. For makes sense --Jellofun 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. For --The Envoy 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. For - I see no reason that the sysops position should be one held for life, and a 2 year term, on the internet, is a lifetime. If this fails, the idled sysops part of it should be re-submitted alone -- boxy • talk • 23:42 16 November 2007 (BST)
  16. For - I don't think that A/VB and A/M provide enough accountability. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. For - because things need to change for better or for worst--The1doctor 12:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. For - because anything that cyberbob cyclopsboy isn't for is probably abso-fuckin'lutely the best choice--Atahalne 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. For - Oh my god Oh my god! Sysops actually have to be accountable?No way! --User:Axe27/Sig 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - For all the reasons on the discussion page, as well as the fact that this should have been archived in the withdrawn policies section yesterday as it was over two weeks old and hadnt been moved to voting. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Against - Accountability exists, this is just a way to get rid of Sysops who punish popular people.--Karekmaps?! 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Against This is unnecessary. See Karek. – Nubis 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against Those who don't think the community will screw this up are either ignorant or simply being naive. Also, meatpuppetry - Akule is effectively proving our point for us! --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to Talk Page. – Nubis 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Against As mentioned above. --MikeaveLi 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Against--Jorm 04:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Against How does one prepare meatpuppet? --Beauxdeigh 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Against--Kashara 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. As Karek.--ShadowScope 05:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Against -- Because.-- BKM 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Against - This is prone to 'crat corruption. It will also create a power struggle between Sysops which isn't good. - If Jedaz = 07:54, 16 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
  12. Against - Akule does not have the wiki's best interests at heart. Sysops who abuse their additional powers can be brought to Misconduct and demoted if found guilty of heinous bad faith actions (including general bullying) or incompetence. That's all the accountability, right there. So, as well as being a bad faith policy, this is also not needed. (The removal of inactive sysops is a side issue, thrown in to make this proposal more palatable. It should be voted on as a separate policy.) These issues were brought up as part of the pre-vote discussion but Akule simply refused to compromise. There may be room for improving the current system - but this goes too far. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Eh.. what? - Whitehouse 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Againgst Couple of points. 1) 3 months of not editing = Demotion? What if your PC blows up or something? 2) Reveiw process, while arguably not a populartiy contest is open to all kinds of drama. One of the (many) reasons I don't want to be a sysop is because I don't want the entire wiki launching a discussion about me, discussing all my faults and mistakes with a few nasty, snide comments thrown in. It seems to be a horrible thing to go through, I'm pretty damn sure no-one would want to go through it twice!--SeventythreeTalk 09:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Against we do need something to bring more accountability to the Mod team and set terms would probably have been the way forwards, sadly this travesty has probably destroyed any chance for a sensible discussion on the issue... thanks Akule! --Honestmistake 09:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Against You never actually stated why we need this convincingly. Just extra red tape and dramaz. There are already channels for anything this could help with. --ZaruthustraMod 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Those above me said it all. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 11:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Accountability and transparancy are absolutely necessary. And we already have it, i.e. VB/Arby and Misconduct. I believe there may be some areas for improvement in making the system somewhat open than it currently is... but this is not the way to go about it. Also, there is no set number of sysops -- so automatically demoting then replacing idled sysops makes no sense. --WanYao 13:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. I've never been a fan of this policy, and have stayed away from it for the most part. I also wholly agree with what WanYao has said. --Ryiis 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Against I don't see why the current system require fixing? --Barroom Hero 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Against Its already been proven that this policy is unneeded for all cases where Misconduct covers it. The secondary idled sysop issue is just a caboose on the "lets get rid of grim" Railroad. --Karlsbad 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Against This was made in bad faith. Omega 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Against It's so obivious that this is not in good faith. If it is okay to put a thinly veiled policy designed to get another user, I would like to submit a ban by votes policy. --Rogue 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Against Because anything that Nalikill is for is probably wrong. --Stephen Colbert DFA 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Nay I'd vote for, but only because this suggestion is missing it completely on a few points. This really is just some red tape. The only thing I want is auto-demotion after 3 months after the last edit. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Against But I do hate to say so. I love the spirit of the suggestion, but in the current environment I think that any review session would degrade to bickering and personal attacks, and that's simply not going to improve the wiki. Sorry. --FT MCDU: Black Knights 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Against --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Against For aforementioned reasons--Screw Names 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Against Politics in the wiki is bad enough already. --Rutherford 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Against That's a big helping of me too, for most of the above -- Bisfan 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Against If Akule's behind it, there's an ulterior motive. --Goolina Gore Corps 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Against - Hamstringing sysops through pseudo-populism is not in the best interests of the wiki. --The Hierophant 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Against - The last thing we want are tri-monthly popularity contests. Just look at the votes here, from both sides, on the grounds of personal reasons, it would be merely a session of "Let's gang up on the sysops because they dared to revert my vandalism!"--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Against - When Gage comes back, which he will, I don't want him pissed at the fact he's not a mod anymore.--Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 07:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Policy defeated, 19 keep to 34 against. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Automatic_Sysop_Cycling&oldid=918754"