UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Check
evaluation due and the crats
In the "evaluation due" column, what should we put next to current 'crats, given that they are exempt from A/RE, but have their own reevaluation in the form of regular bureaucrat elections? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:22 9 June 2010 (BST)
- I'd think you could just bold or italicize their date; if need be, you could even put a small note along the lines of Italicized dates denote bureaucratic elections below the table. ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 03:32, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- Append the date with "*Election".
03:32, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- What do you guys mean? I thought it was just 8 months from when a crat was elected into crat? -- 04:27, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- Nope, crats are exempt from A/RE, but after 3 months without an election, one is held for the longest serving crat. Meaning that my "evaluation due" column should show an election for my position on 2010/07/15, and Ross's as indeterminate -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:38 9 June 2010 (BST)
- I'd just put in the date for A/BP. As the policies say, they act as the A/RE for 'crats since the community is reaffirming their faith in the individual with each A/BP. In your case, your date should be 2010-07-15, since that's when your seat is up, and Ross' would be 2010-10-15, since that's the earliest his seat is up (theoretically, he could hold it as late as December without A/BP coming around for him, but that's unlikely to occur). No need for notes or anything else, since it says that you guys are 'crats right there in the table, though we might change the language of "Evaluation Due" to something less specific. —Aichon— 05:46, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- I just read this and understood it for the first time and I think it's silly, their next "evaluation due", for all intents and purposes, is when their next A/RE is just like all the other sysops. And making their "evaluation due" on the date of the election where their crat spot is up for grabs creates too many connotations that the crat is being 'evaluated' in said crat election rather than the seat going to the best man. It puts more focus on the incumbent crat rather than the spot itself. Or am I reading too much into this? -- LEMON #1 13:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do think you're reading into it a bit, but I can see where you're coming from. I'd say that simply rephrasing it so that it refers to the end of their term, rather than their evaluation date would be the way to go, that way we'd all understand what it meant and it'd lose the connotations. Otherwise, no, the date should not be their next A/RE, since they are not subject to A/RE until they are demoted. Putting the date that their seat is up at A/BP makes things convenient for us, since the intuition would be that we'd have that date in this table. —Aichon— 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- As Aichon. It's impossible to put the next RE date, because we don't know when it will be until they're demoted.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of course we do. It's [date they were promoted to bureaucrat] + 8 months, just like it is for every other op's promotion or /re. UNTIL they get re-elected (if they do), then that's their designated A/RE time. The way we have it atm is retarded because the "evaluation due" was only ever added to display when someone's A/RE was next due unless something new came up which either elongated the date or rendered it useless (like demotion etc). It's always been used that way but now because of all this extraneous judgement in someone's "evaluation", the table doesn't do that and is therefore just rendered completely useless for any purpose, since any reading of it will require some more research to make sure it's right anyway now.
- Seriously, I really, really don't understand the rationale here. To me it's like "yes, a crat was promoted in January therefore his A/RE is due on September. UNLESS he is re-elected, and if that happens we'll just amend it." is what I'm thinking, but atm it's "He was promoted in January so even though his A/RE will be in September if nothing happens, we'll make the "evaluation due" July because that's when his next election is even though that only counts as a re-evaluation if he 'wins' the election, otherwise it'll just have to be September A/RE." Either way, if the crat sits a second consecutive term we'll HAVE to change it to amend the evaluation due date, but with my system it at least stays consistent with the purpose of the table and won't need to be fiddled with if the crat only has one term. Atm it's backwards to me. -- LEMON #1 00:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tbh, both make sense to me, but I like it in the current way because it shows when the next sysop evaluations/elections are and in order, but I don't really care either way.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- DDR, I do get where you're coming from, but I think it's mostly an academic point that doesn't consider the utility and intuition (your connotation point is valid, however). Just change it to say "End of Term" instead of "Evaluation Due" to handle the connotation issue. After that, we get the benefit of only having to look at one table for all of the relevant dates related to admins, rather than having to dig through A/BP archives to find the next A/BP date for 'crats. In addition, this way actually makes a lot more sense, since if we assume that nothing unexpected comes up, a bureaucrat's A/BP date is a day on which something will happen, whereas their A/RE date is a date on which something might happen. Even though we have to change the dates either way, as you point out, I'd rather have a date that's useful 100% of the time (unexpected situations notwithstanding) than a date that is useless probably more than half the time and forces us to seek out the useful information elsewhere. —Aichon— 04:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- still think it's a good idea? sigh the old way was fine the way it was. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:10, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- DDR, I do get where you're coming from, but I think it's mostly an academic point that doesn't consider the utility and intuition (your connotation point is valid, however). Just change it to say "End of Term" instead of "Evaluation Due" to handle the connotation issue. After that, we get the benefit of only having to look at one table for all of the relevant dates related to admins, rather than having to dig through A/BP archives to find the next A/BP date for 'crats. In addition, this way actually makes a lot more sense, since if we assume that nothing unexpected comes up, a bureaucrat's A/BP date is a day on which something will happen, whereas their A/RE date is a date on which something might happen. Even though we have to change the dates either way, as you point out, I'd rather have a date that's useful 100% of the time (unexpected situations notwithstanding) than a date that is useless probably more than half the time and forces us to seek out the useful information elsewhere. —Aichon— 04:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tbh, both make sense to me, but I like it in the current way because it shows when the next sysop evaluations/elections are and in order, but I don't really care either way.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- As Aichon. It's impossible to put the next RE date, because we don't know when it will be until they're demoted.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do think you're reading into it a bit, but I can see where you're coming from. I'd say that simply rephrasing it so that it refers to the end of their term, rather than their evaluation date would be the way to go, that way we'd all understand what it meant and it'd lose the connotations. Otherwise, no, the date should not be their next A/RE, since they are not subject to A/RE until they are demoted. Putting the date that their seat is up at A/BP makes things convenient for us, since the intuition would be that we'd have that date in this table. —Aichon— 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just read this and understood it for the first time and I think it's silly, their next "evaluation due", for all intents and purposes, is when their next A/RE is just like all the other sysops. And making their "evaluation due" on the date of the election where their crat spot is up for grabs creates too many connotations that the crat is being 'evaluated' in said crat election rather than the seat going to the best man. It puts more focus on the incumbent crat rather than the spot itself. Or am I reading too much into this? -- LEMON #1 13:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd just put in the date for A/BP. As the policies say, they act as the A/RE for 'crats since the community is reaffirming their faith in the individual with each A/BP. In your case, your date should be 2010-07-15, since that's when your seat is up, and Ross' would be 2010-10-15, since that's the earliest his seat is up (theoretically, he could hold it as late as December without A/BP coming around for him, but that's unlikely to occur). No need for notes or anything else, since it says that you guys are 'crats right there in the table, though we might change the language of "Evaluation Due" to something less specific. —Aichon— 05:46, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- Nope, crats are exempt from A/RE, but after 3 months without an election, one is held for the longest serving crat. Meaning that my "evaluation due" column should show an election for my position on 2010/07/15, and Ross's as indeterminate -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:38 9 June 2010 (BST)
- What do you guys mean? I thought it was just 8 months from when a crat was elected into crat? -- 04:27, 9 June 2010 (BST)
- Append the date with "*Election".
- Seems fine. I'll have mine on 2010-10-15.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:43, 15 June 2010 (BST)
- Actually, the earliest Ross' can be is 2010-10-29, if you factor in the 14 days for Boxy's Crat election to take place. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:55, 15 June 2010 (BST)
DDR, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater with your changes today, and "Next Evaluation" is more error prone than "End of Term", as you demonstrated today when you fixed one mistake by replacing it with two. At least "End of Term" is self-consistent and unambiguous in what it means, in that it actually applies equally to both sysops and 'crats and can only refer to one date for each of them. "Next Evaluation" doesn't make any sense at all for 'crats, since it could either refer to when their seat is up for grabs (which is considered a successful re-evaluation if they hold their seat) OR when they would be up for re-eval if they fail to reclaim their seat. I'm not going to change it back to "End of Term" without some discussion, but I'd like you to reconsider at the very least. —Aichon— 18:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- On second thought, I went ahead and changed it, but tried to do something different than what we've tried in the past. It gets rid of the ambiguity, but at the cost of a bit of wasted space. Since we continue to have issues in distinguishing between the dates that Bureaucrats' seats are up vs. the dates of their potential reevaluations should they not retain their rank, breaking it into two separate columns seemed to be in order, and I provided specific instructions at the bottom so that we don't keep having to track down and parse through the policies every time this happens. —Aichon— 19:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Next Evaluation was me, it's clear, consise and doesn't add a needless table. The meaning is obviously understood. Stop needlessly confusing yourself, crat election counts as an evaluation and it's even worded as such in the policy iirc. You're overthinking a simple template. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Sorting Glitch?
Back when I was here in 2013-4, the Sysop Check template could be sorted by any of its columns. Now, it sorts properly by "User" and "Position", but all of the other sort buttons (in the date columns) do nothing. The sort arrows are still there but clicking them doesn't sort the table. Anyone else having this problem? I'm a Firefox user if that's relevant. Just checked in Chrome and the problem is identical. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sortable tables have been dead since the wiki update ragnarök boogaloo. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
New columns? & Location?
Given that this template has been radically changed by the recent policy decision, I have removed the "last" and "next" A/RE scheduling columns. Should new, more relevant columns be supplied in their place? Perhaps date of original promotion to Sysop ("Sysop since"), or some other important date?
On a similar note, as it's now irrelevant for re-evaluation scheduling, should this template's transclusion be removed from A/RE and put somewhere else, perhaps A/DM where its content is still relevant? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, A/DM makes more sense. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Completely agree on relocating it. Maybe add it to A/BP as well, that way we can reference who is serving in what roles currently and when they were last active? Another possibility would be to change it from being a wikitable to something else that's more useful instead, but I'm not sure what that would be. I'm having trouble thinking of anything that would actively aid in the various procedures we have around here, but I don't want to fall into the trap of adding information just for the sake of adding information. —Aichon— 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
