UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Performance reviews reviewed

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Every 6 months Sysops will go though a performance review. This performance review will be mandatory for a Sysop only if at the moment of the review:

  • The Sysop has held his/her Sysop status for 3 months or more.
  • The Sysop doesn't hold the title of Bureaucrat.

This performance review will start April 1st and October 1st of every year, and will be scheduled to end two weeks after the first vote has been casted. The process will take place on a new page, UDWiki:Administration/Performance Reviews, so to avoid cluttering the UDWiki:Administration/Promotions page on every Sysop review's season. Every user that wishes to will be able to cast one vote for each Sysop, limited to For, Against or Abstain votes, and thus will be able to voice his/her opinion. At the end of the process Bureaucrats will review the community input on every Sysop and allow them to keep their status or demote him/her according to each Sysop's perceived performance by the community. The final result of who was able to keep his status and who didn't make it will be clearly stated at the end of the review, and then archived.

Demoted users are left with the choice of starting another promotion bid to regain Sysop status whenever they want, if they want to, and if at the moment of being demoted they where in a bid to obtain Bureaucrat status, they are automatically disqualified.

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. Some form of accountability for Sysops is needed. This draft presents a very objective option that doesn't take in account individualities nor possible events, treating Sysops as neutrally and equally as possible. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:35, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  2. If only to remove the sysops who are long since gone. --Amanu Jaku 05:34, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Insert Comment--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 11:04, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  4. It's very important that sysops listen to the community and are accountable for their actions. --Toejam A 13:14, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    Discussion moved to talk page.
  5. I wonder why we didn't have this when Gage was in power? (No offense, Gage, that is...if you even return.) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:17, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  6. Accountability is a good thing -- Pavluk 23:28, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  7. We need a way to remove sysops who have proven that they will just continue to cause drama and ignore the current methods of deterrents and threats of punishment altogether, and prove that they don't have what it takes to be leaders of the wiki community. --Akule School's in session. 00:27, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    PROTIP: Grim was cleared of any wrongdoing. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:13, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    Wow, the blatant lies in your vote are astonishing. Firstly, both of us forgot about the arbitration case. Secondly, it wasnt drama, thirdly, Nalikill himself was asked to decide on that, and he decided against you as it wasnt drama, and nothing involved in that had anything to do with anyone being a sysop. I am left wondering when i peed in your cheerios. I certainly dont recall ever doing so. --The Grimch U! 13:57, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    I've simply watched how you work with new users and how you certainly enforce Project UnWelcome . This isn't Desensitized or Proboards. Sysops should be a role model for users and should detract from drama instead of causing it. If you "forgot" about the arbitration, you must have a very short memory as you archived it on the 27th of August, one week before. I can remember what happened to me the week prior. Can you? --Akule School's in session. 21:26, 6 September 2007 (BST)
  8. Accountability would be good. --Poju 10:57, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    Thats what we have the Misconduct page for... --The Grimch U! 13:57, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    But the misconduct page is insufficient. There's all kinds of ways a sysop can act against the best interests of the wiki without it being misconduct. Sysops are voted in on the basis that they are trusted to make the right decisions for the wiki. If they lose this trust, then they should cease to be sysops, even if they weren't "convicted" for misconduct. --Toejam A Stats Graph 14:41, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    Not if they are doing their jobs right. They shouldn't be removed unless they are doing something to warrant removal.--Karekmaps?! 14:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)
    And this is a process for determining if they are doing their jobs right in the opinion of the wiki as a whole. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:46, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    No, its a process to remove sysops with whom you have personality conflicts, or dont particularly like. If a sysop has done something wrong, the Misconduct page is there to punish and/or remove them. This policy is nothing about removing sysops from their position as sysops because of their actions as sysops, but because of their actions as a regular user. To put it bluntly, its an attempt to remove any sysop who has decided that they dont care about their popularity, and just does their job as good as they are able. --The Grimch U! 16:00, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    Everything a sysop does is as a sysop, there is no magic wand where this action is my regular user character and that action is my sysop action. The average sysop will not generate enough animus to warrant users building a case for removal. The ones who stalk and curse at and harass users in Kevan's name, playing stupid intimidation games with "helpless" users and relying on their sysopness to protect their trolling would be in for a very bad day indeed, which is why they are prominent on the against side of this proposition. --Dylan Mak Tyme 16:29, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    I direct your attention to the Guidelines: Moderators are not any "more worthy" than any other user, and moderators are not to use their status to create the impression that they are. Moderators are merely especially trusted wiki users, and are beholden to the community just as any other user is. For most actions on the wiki, a moderator's word has no greater weight than any other user. and In short, a moderator is to be treated as a normal user, with all the rights and responsibilities therein, with some additional responsibilities and associated rights so that they can fulfill those responsibilities. Link. Sysops are merely regular users who have been empowered to perform specific tasks that cannot be trusted to everyone, unless they are performing those duties, they are not acting as sysops. --The Grimch U! 17:33, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    Sysop is a trustee position. Detrimental conduct "as a user" undermines that trustee relationship. The simple expedient of permanently demoting any sysop found cursing would be a good first step in regaining user trust of the wiki. --Dylan Mak Tyme 18:37, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    You are twisting the meaning of trust beyond its intention. Trusted users are merely trusted not to abuse the abilities they are granted, and to perform thier duties as responsible individuals. There is no code of conduct involved. Even then, it is clear that this wiki is filled with cliques, groupings of users who stick together come what may, examples being the Brainstock gang, the C4NT of days gone by, the Zombie Voting Initiative, and the very, very small Akule/Animesucks clique (One more and we can call them an Axis :D). The result of this, for lack of a better term, unionisation of the wiki is that people toe the line of the group, rather than think for themselves, and these can and have been used pretty often in the wiki's history to sway votes. Check out the truly ancient suggestions. We damned near pushed a suggestion to not have zombies through into peer reviewed. A policy such as this gives far too much power to these special interest groups, allowing them to remove sysops that rule against them, or have stances on topics against them. Any discussion on a Sysops performance, in a performance review, must be based on the sysops performance as a sysop, not on the voters perception of how the user acts on the wiki when not doing his or her job. --The Grimch U! 18:55, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    Negation of the "abuse by clan/group" addressed in the proposal by Bureaucrat review in the above process. User input is precisely that, input, not an up or down vote. Bureaucrats, certainly, should be limited by Kevan to those he trusts to protect his interests and those of the game and the wiki. I certainly do not mean to suggest that things have reached a nadir, my sense of it from reading is that there have been reforms and factions gaming those reforms as time moves on. What I do emphasize is that the status quo does not serve the interests of Kevan and Urban Dead. The "compartmentalization" policy works against these interests, abuses by sysops as users translates to ill will toward the wiki, Urban Dead, and Kevan. Firewalling the issues by an artificial compartmentalization combined with sysop solidarity against the user base simply converts the resulting friction into user anger, resentment, and apathy. I originally got into this discussion because I was asked to address vandalism by players who were frustrated with wiki madness. I don't believe that this community with this leadership have the tools to address the core rot in wiki management, I encourage Kevan to think about how his customer relations might be better managed. I believe that this policy is an important step in the right direction. --Dylan Mak Tyme 20:06, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    That would be absolutely wonderful, if it werent for the fact that cliques are extremely hard to identify from the outside. You cannot expect bureaucrats to be omniscient regarding such things. Besides, that presumes they themselves dont have a bias against the sysop in question, everyone has one, even me, its just that the systems in place block such bias from having an effect, essentially because the rules are so clear cut that wriggling out through bias is easily visible, and the result can be easily challenged by another sysop. In something like an election, a bureaucrat can hide their personal bias by "allowing due process", and under such a process, the other bureaucrat cannot overrule the first one without appearing to be undermining the process, and those users of the clique and those who are unaware of such entities will dogpile and miscontrubutate him if he tries. Furthermore, there are large numbers of cliques, eliminating the votes of only some would be blatantly unfair. If a bureaucrat knew of them all, there wouldnt be very many votes done at all, since pretty mcuh everyone buty the true newbies would be a member of one. You cannot eliminate cliques or their effects from the voting process without destroying that very process, and it is the presence of cliques in the voting process that make such voting processes unfit for removing people from positions where they may very well have to go against public opinion. The democratic system is fundamentally flawed, and cliques can be found in virtually every form of voting on the planet, right down from internal group votes where close friends vote together to high political office, where party loyalty regularly takes a front seat to actual performance, except when such performance has been so terrible to disenfrancise their loyal voters. The policy documents clearly state that sysops are just regular users who volenteered and were supported to fulfill vital maintenance tasks which require special tools. We are not spokespeople for the wiki community, indeed, a great many of you would greatly resent such an implication. Instead, we are just users charged with enforcing the policies of the wiki. No more, no less, and throwing open the floor to removing us based on public perception rather than our actual performance in those tasks is asinine.--The Grimch U! 18:49, 16 September 2007 (BST)
  9. For better run wiki--Kristi of the Dead 12:30, 8 September 2007 (BST)
  10. Accountability is rarely a bad thing. --Penta 15:39, 8 September 2007 (BST)
  11. This will actually bring the drama level on the entire frakkin' wiki down by concentrating it on one page. A sysop who can't keep the respect of the community is an absentee or a troll waiting to happen. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 16:47, 8 September 2007 (BST)
  12. thank goodness, I have been waiting for something like this forever! I have seen wide and wild abuse by some of those in charge and wish for it to end.--Jellofun 02:16, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  13. Aye. --Fingersmith 02:46, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  14. I believe this will actually make the admin's job a little easier. --McCrunchky 10:31, 09 September 2007 (BST)
  15. For great justice.--Labine50 MEMS | MHG 18:11, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  16. Accountability is good. I think the wiki will benefit from this. - --Th heartbeat-1.gifDr. Allison Wolf MEMS Talk PIF 22:42, 9 September 2007 (BST)
    I find myself believing that this is probably a good idea. It's obvious to me that there are sysops out there who are simply not up to the task. I believe the task involves more than the day-to-day work on the wiki (which most appear to do well, and I commend them for their unrewarded contribution). I think the sysops set an example (good or bad) and there are sysops at the moment who add to the drama, cause the drama, or are otherwise more or less gifted at bullying users. Sometimes it's leading the charge of nasty unconstructive commentary on the suggestions page, and other times it's worse. Sysops, ask yourself if you're having fun at the expense of other wiki users. If so then you should check yourselves. If you're unable, then this concept may do it for you. --8 Bucks 04:05, 13 September 2007 (BST) Removed my own vote --8 Bucks 15:50, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  17. Originally was against, but the sysops themselves have presented passionate and compelling (profane, mostly, truth be told) arguments for this policy. --Dylan Mak Tyme 04:52, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  18. Indeed! -- Neal Stonebrook 14:31, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  19. I believe the wiki would benefit from this. Responsibility (and accountability) should accompany any sort of power. --Lois Millard 19:51, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  20. no comment --'BPTmz 21:10, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  21. Supported it in the past, will continue to support accountability for SysOp decisions. Those who make good choices will keep their positions. Those who don't will be gone. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:34, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Against

  1. for mordor! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:37, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  2. This makes a bad system worse. --Karekmaps?! 04:38, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Because it is a terrible idea --The Grimch U! 04:39, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  4. This feels like an attempt at a power grab.--Jorm 04:40, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    I have been demoted by my own request. I can't hardly grasp how this is a power grab... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:45, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    One can still attempt to grab power by removing it from those who oppose.--Jorm 04:49, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  5. 8/24 - NEVAR FORGET --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 04:42, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  6. I feel this will bring more bad than good and, as always, anyone who want to review my performance can do so on my talk page - Vantar 05:17, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    The same is not true on the talk pages of other, hardened Sysops. Some wouldn't flynch in flaming away twenty or more users from their talk page before having a second thought about changing their ways, not even mentioning requesting their own demotion. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:35, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    Sorry... but Matt's right... whether you like it or not, he's right. Posting to their talk page is NOT a solution... --WanYao 05:40, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    Nonsense. If you have a problem with a sysops use of their abilities, feel free to bring it up on their page, but you had just better be sure your concerns are very valid, otherwise, we might get ticked off. We do an utterly thankless job, and we often cop the brunt of crap from ignorant fools such as matt (Remember Wiki Monitors?), we get pretty much nothing but criticism for it already. Its tedious, its repetitive, and we have to go through the proper channels to use even the most mundane abilities. If you feel we are making a mistake, let us know. HOWEVER, please do so in a manner that doesnt come over as whining. Very few of us have any tolerance at all for that crap, and some people, especially me, will deride you for it. --The Grimch U! 06:16, 3 September 2007 (BST).
    Clarification-I didn't mean to imply that every sysops talk was a good place for performance reveiws/criticisms. I added that bit about my talk page to clarify the fact that my problems are with this system, not with the idea of a performance review in general. - Vantar 07:24, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    Which is exactly what I think, too, Vantar. Additionally... Grimch, a properly implemented feedback system could actually help to shield a sysop from the kind of bullshit to which you refer -- while at the same time allowing regular users a process to redress valid concerns and even, god forbid, to commend and to recognise sysops for outstanding performance of their "thankless" duties. --WanYao 13:06, 3 September 2007 (BST)
    Thankless duties which they volunteered for and gained through popular election. It's stupid that they should be worshipped when they asked for the jobs in the first place, knowing full well all that they would have to do. If you need a break, then step down and then ask to be re-elected when you are ready. Don't go indefinite hiatus, and certainly don't lecture us on the hardships of a job you wanted to do for free. --Akule School's in session. 02:37, 11 September 2007 (BST)
  7. No. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:36, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  8. Posting to the talk page of a sysop, whose actions one feels were somehow inappropriate, isn't really a good "solution". Not at all... But, unfortunately, neither is this proposal... --WanYao 05:38, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  9. 'Fraid not. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:54, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  10. As above.--ShadowScope 06:04, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  11. What kind of little ditty should be played on this bandwagon? --Karlsbad 06:48, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  12. I hate lolcats. I really do. They are a fucking mainstream copy of Caturday with no sense of humour whatsoever. I hold you responsable for this, Matthew. And I am going to vote against this Policy as a revenge. Oh yes. You will suffer for this.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 06:55, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  13. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 17:14, 6 September 2007 (BST)
  14. People get nothing for moderating this wiki and the guys that do it do a great job but theres nothing to make them. The more rules and reassessments and damm performance reviews you're putting them through, the job becomes less appealing and less people are going to do it. Also just because you dislike a sysop doesn't mean they aren't doing a good job and this is going to end up being a I don't him and I don't like her thing... --MarieThe Grove on Tour 15:56, 7 September 2007 (BST)
  15. I don't think this is the policy that is needed The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 09:43 9 September 2007 (BST)
  16. In Democratic countries, there is often a pre-stated time in which those in power have their positions reviewed. I believe that is something which should apply to the sysops on this wiki. However, this proposal does not have enough content in how such things would be handled. I also think (after reading the discussion) that there should be some way of shielding an unpopular (but good at what they do) sysops - either by giving the Burecrat a veto, or possibly by having the position reviewed by his/her peers (other sysops) with input from the community being, not in the form of votes, but comments to be reviewed by the committee of peers. -- Ryiis 17:31, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  17. Pick one of the above votes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:45, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  18. Occasionaly a Sysop has to make a descision that will annoy other people. Sometimes these people (cougth-Akule-cougth) will take massive offence and start some bizzare crusade to get em. Why make things easier for them?--Seventythree 23:24, 9 September 2007 (BST)
  19. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 02:22, 11 September 2007 (BST)
  20. - Against - Having a chance to rethink my vote, I've concluded that at the end of the day, this wiki belongs to Kevan. The sysops may be elected, but Kevan holds the reigns. If arbitration isn't enough, people are still within their rights to appeal to the owner. I'll tell you point blank, I don't like the way Grim treats about 90% of the people here. It's not cool, and I'd expect a more adult approach from a sysop. But I already have a mechanism to request a change. I can talk to Grim, I can appeal to arbitration, and I can appeal to Kevan. That's really enough. I'd ask Grim to lead by example and show us that you don't need to demean people to have fun. It's the hallmark of a bully, and I think he can rise above that. He's not the only one, just the example that comes to mind. Sorry for singling you out, Grim. Anyway, more rules and more opportunities to bitch about the sysops aren't going to make a real change here. --8 Bucks 15:59, 13 September 2007 (BST)
    No offense taken. Though i would have to say that my attitude is almost entirely limited to suggestions, the suggestions talk page in particular. Also, it certainly isnt to 90% of the users of the wiki. Hell, i was even "nice" to Izumi when she came with an alt to my user page today, before i banned her again (arguably, this is not a nice thing to do, but seeing as how it was her 12th alt on this wiki, and at least her 9th since she was permabanned, i think i was more than justified in this action). --The Grimch U! 20:06, 13 September 2007 (BST)
    My bad. I am guilty of exaggeration to make a point. I was actually surprised the you didn't rip Izumi a new one based upon what I've seen you post on the suggestions page. Anyway, I shouldn't have to exaggerate a point to make it. --8 Bucks 20:49, 13 September 2007 (BST)
    You really shouldnt be. I learned all i needed to know about Izumi in the first encounter i had with her. She posed no threat, and it wasnt on the suggestions talk page. --The Grimch U! 20:56, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  21. As Sonny.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:44, 13 September 2007 (BST)
  22. Akule supports it, so it must be bad. Nalikill 17:39, 15 September 2007 (BST)
    I might have supported it, but seeing how Akule plans to use it to cause more Wiki Drama I'd have to say no. Unsigned vote struck and indented. --The Grimch U! 11:16, 16 September 2007 (BST)
  23. There already exists a way to reign in Sysops and such, and this would not add anything of value to the system. It would, in fact, make it worse. --Liche 19:21, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Performance_reviews_reviewed&oldid=1259983"