View source for UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Performance reviews reviewed

==Discussion==
Yeah, good. There's ways a sysop can act in bad faith while skirting around the rules, and this should stop (or at least hinder) that. (Not that bad-faith sysoping is particularly common these days.) --&nbsp;[[User:Toejam|<small><span style="border:solid #000000 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: black">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</span></small>]]&nbsp; 10:20, 29 August 2007 (BST)

Oh noes, how will we maintain our iron fist of power over the wiki, in order to further the goals of the Great Mod Conspiracy now? --[[User:Daranz|Daranz]]<sup>.[[User_talk:Daranz|t]].[[UDWiki:Administration|<s>mod</s> janitor]].[[Wiki (Monitors)^infinity|W(M)^∞]].</sup> 14:37, 29 August 2007 (BST)

Yes, please... This is a great idea. As long as it's made in such a way so as to hinder abuse and drama-mongering. Like critera for recall/demotion. Because being unpopular doesn't necessarily mean one is a bad sysop. And vice versa. 

But this I don't like: ''"Demoted users are left with the choice of starting another promotion bid to regain Sysop status whenever they want, if they want to"'' -- If you're demoted there ought to be a moratorium on re-applying, a "cooling off" period, so to speak. Maybe 30 days... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:43, 29 August 2007 (BST)
:It would harm an ex-Sysop's reputation a whole lot if they do so. An arbitrary moratorium doesn't sound like needed, so I rather allow than limit an ex-Sysop's reaplication in a random number of days. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 22:31, 29 August 2007 (BST)

This sounds good. It's important that all sysops act towards making the wiki a place that is purely based on information, and not opinion. The recent drama on Kevan's talk page (which was initiated by one sysops, and participated in by many more) is a good example something that would have never have happened on a serious wikipedia site. I approve of any measure that restores accountability to the guys at the top and encourages them to act according to high standards, especially with regards to ensuring that the wiki remains as a purely informative and unbiased environment. --[[User:Generator killer|Generator killer]] 18:21, 29 August 2007 (BST)
:On top of what? Seriously. --[[User:Daranz|Daranz]]<sup>.[[User_talk:Daranz|t]].[[UDWiki:Administration|<s>mod</s> janitor]].[[Wiki (Monitors)^infinity|W(M)^∞]].</sup> 19:54, 29 August 2007 (BST)

Wait, wha? NO. I see no point. This is like the Wiki Monitors, only even more absurd. Once you get elected, you stay in that position until they catch you doing something wrong and you get demoted. It works well for us already, why change the system?  Mods need insulation from the public, otherwise they may be forced to side with the public on an issue rather than evaluating it on its own merits. If they commit bad faith edits, that's where Misconduct comes in.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]] 20:27, 29 August 2007 (BST)
:Sysops are quite "insulated" from the public already, and that's quite a problem. While the general wiki population renews itself, we become stagnant and deaf to the needs of a new community that treats us as strangers and fear us. If giving them the power to demote us is a solution, and reelecting us themselves will do the trick to earn the trust of a new community that doesn't know us as "the cool guys from x group or y policy", then I will gladly do it.
:Briefly put, with time the style of doing administrational work has changed, jurisprudence and good faith have a new meaning, the newly elected Sysops have a whole different appearance than the old ones and even the middle aged ones as me, and a lot of other factors have changed. The system of "Sysop makes a mistake, he's demoted" doesn't cover this or even work properly: the only Sysop that got demoted this way was [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]], and a week after we had our Bureaucrats asking for forgiveness because he did nothing wrong. A system like this is needed and the community seems to like the idea as I see above. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 22:31, 29 August 2007 (BST)

There is absolutely no need for this. There have been several valid demotions: There was kevan demoting amazing for his misconduct hours after he was promoted illegally by Odd Starter, and there was also Odd Starters Bureacrat demotion over the whole affair as well. you can divide misconduct into two groups: Minor and Serious. Minor abuse is like protecting a page early, or giving the wrong punishment on the vandal banning page. Serious abuse involves deletions and promotions. So far i do not believe we have had very much serious abuse, and as such, we havent had to demote many people. Also, Shadowscope is correct, we do need insulation from the community with regards to actual sysophood, otherwise we will need to pander to the wishes of the community if we wish to keep the peace. Furthermore, a review would be conducted not on the quality and standard of the administration provided, but instead based on peoples popularity. While i have absolutely no doubt that i could swing enough people to keep me in office should the need arise (Your plan is foiled, mate), i think that for a good sysop to have to go to such measures to keep his or her position is completely unfair to them. A sysop who is doing a good job doesnt have to be liked by the community. As long as he/she is within the rules, and doing their duty, there is absolutely no need to review their behaviour. Finally, if this goes to voting, you need to expressly state that there is absolutely no Bureaucrat Veto on the subject. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 23:06, 29 August 2007 (BST)

I think this is a bad idea and vulnerable to vote stuffing.  It's basically another wrapped popularity contest, and it's more of what you would expect on a corrupt country or something like that. It actually reminds me of the 1880's generation in Argentina... kinda strange.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 00:26, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:Promotions and this proposed performance reviews aren't votes: people express their concern and a Bureaucrat allows or negate the user to pass the test. This will be the same, so the "threats" you and Grim make seem pretty pointless if the votes would have no content, or voiced the same concern or support over and over again. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 02:06, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::That's actually not very clear in this proposal, Matthew... It appears to me that if a Sysop fails a performance review, they lose their sysop status immediately and automatically. And while I am strongly in favour of Sysops being concretely accountable to the community, I don't think this is quite the way to do it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:30, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::The review, as the policy proposses, is surveyed by a Bureucrat that in base of the different concerns expressed on the votes demotes the Sysop or allows him to remain as such. There's no "2/3rds of the votes" rule or anything, just what the Bureaucrat thinks best after reviewing the community opinion on an user. Yes: if the Bureaucrat, after surveying these votes, decides that the Sysop should not maintain his status as such, then the Sysop is demoted immediately. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:30, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Can't say I can think of any of the Sysop guys that deserve to be kicked off, even so, it would be a good idea, apart from anything else, it allows the possiblity for the Sysops to gain feedback.--[[User:Seventythree|Seventythree]] 00:30, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:We have talk pages for feedback. We do not need this. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 01:20, 30 August 2007 (BST)


#I do my job, people like it, i keep my job. 
#I do my job, people dont like it, people file misconduct against me, another mod rule i was right, i keep my job.
#I do my job, people dont like it, people file misconduct against me, another mod rule i was wrong, i lose my job.
why do we need performance review ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 03:31, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:Its almost as though he is trying, rather poorly, to get rid of his opponents among the moderators who dont pander to the public like he does. Bet you a dollar that if he thought rolling in shit made him popular, you would never get him out of it. we Sysops NEED to be impartial, and this means we cannot in any way pander to the public. We MUST do our jobs as the policies tell us to. We cant just ban people who are unpopular, we cant just delete pages some people dont like. We have to be impartial and fair and balanced. Funnily enough, it is Matt who is farthest from this ideal. I think he is jealous. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 03:36, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::This policy is a resubmission of a policy discussion started by [[User:Gage|GAGE]] himself. [[User:Vista|Vista]] was going to resubmit it later but for some reason he didn't. I chatted with Vista on several opportunities about this policy, and I presented this exact version of the policy (with dates changed) on that policy discussion talk page. I waited this long because I wanted Vista to submit the policy himself, as his name is less poisonus than mine. Stop being so self conceited, this is an old policy discussion brought back by a more active user than the original submiter, everything else is just your fabrications. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:25, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::Oh boy didnt you just dig yourself into a hole! ''We Sysops NEED to be impartial, and this means we cannot in any way pander to the public. We MUST do our jobs as the policies tell us to. We cant just ban people who are unpopular, we cant just delete pages some people dont like. We have to be impartial and fair and balanced. Funnily enough, it is Matt who is farthest from this ideal. I think he is jealous.'' - Me. According to you, thats all a big fabrication. Good to know i dont have to be impartial or fair! '''TREMBLE MORTALS AND DESPAIR! DOOM HAS COME TO THIS WIKI!!!''' :D --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:57, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::::How mature. I was obviously referring to the part on wich you theorize about my purposes. If you won't make any more constructive comments at all, then refrain from posting. Of course you won't. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 06:08, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::::'''everything else''' - Your words. The rest is just you fluffing around trying to turn that huge fucking mistake on your part into something positive for yourself. Guess what? Not working. You say one thing, than claim that the exact opposite of what you said was obviously what you meant. The fact that you are seriously claiming this scares me. I havent met many truly insane people before. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:08, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::I never did introduced such a policy because I wanted a policy that automatically demoted idled out sysops. And gave them an easy way to reclaim their sysop status. My view was different then this one. In the end I figured that the situation wasn't that broken and that most fixes would actually be counterproductive. a performance review might be a good solution for the more complicated misconduct cases though.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 01:20, 3 September 2007 (BST)
Bad idea because some people aren't exactly popular but are good sysops, then some people are popular and aren't good sysops. This would just encourage popular over effective even more than it already does.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 04:13, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:rgree++.  This just encourages pandering to voting blocs.  Plus, it's an obvious ploy to attempt to remove individuals who stand between Matt and The Ultimate Power.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 07:25, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::The not so nice sysops are usually the best there are. And some of the worst sysops are the ones that try to be nice. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[Caiger Resistance Front|CRF]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 07:20, 30 August 2007 (BST)

I have to agree with alot of what other people have said above. When making potential controversial calls Sysops should not have to worry about the public backlash. Obviously though there are a few cases where Sysops act out of line, however with the current line-up of Sysops this isn't a problem. What I belive that you may have failed to realize is that the wiki has changed alot since the first time this idea was purposed when it was possibly needed. However alot of the abrasive Sysops have now left the wiki or have been demoted. Sure Grims still here, but he worked on the suggestions system so it's to be expected that he's a bit rough around the edges =P Anyway I think that in the end it's more important to promote people who can prove that they can make good judgement calls or go beyond the line of duty for the wiki then anything else. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 09:09, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
:Well said Jedaz. I came out at the tail end of that rough Sysop era, and I was also a user during the middle part. I saw the backlash against many of the Sysops, however most of the time they were completely out of line and did things that were not called for. Personal attacks and snide comments seemed to be a favourite of the old generation. I'm gald with the group that we have here, although I am also sad that much of that past expertise is also gone. --{{User:Dux Ducis/sig}} 11:19, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::That old expertise isn't ''gone''... it's just that it isn't in a position where it may be used. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 11:40, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::I don't think that there is really a situation where it's needed anyway. Admittedly it does make precedence harder to use, but on the whole I think it's better to analyse the situation case by case rather then sticking to one decision for all cases. I know it's much easier to go with what you have in the past rather then trying a different approach. Whether this is a good thing or not is up to debate. Anyway quite a few of the older generation of sysops are still reasonably active and in power (eg, [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]], [[User:Grim s|Grim s]], [[User:The General|The General]], [[User:Vista|Vista]], ect...) - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 12:09, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
::::If you don't think it's needed... why did you say you were sad it's gone (don't worry, Jedaz, I know perfectly well who you were referring to with that little snipe)? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 12:21, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::::I belive that Dux said that he was sad that it was gone, not me. I'm honestly not having a go at you Cyberbob. I geuss you could get it from my first sentence, but what I ment with it is that the current newer generation is fine without the assistance of the older generation of sysops (as a whole). However read it anyway you want. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 12:31, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
::::::Whups. So he did. >_>
::::::As for your snipe, I was referring to your reference to the "abrasive" sysops. You seem to be forgetting the amount of abuse we in turn had to endure. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 12:39, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::::::Oh, you don't even realize the kind of abuse that I recived off you and Xoid, so don't you fucking dare to bring up that can of worms. All of the abuse you recived was because you were the biggest arsehole out there, you got everything you deserved. Fuck I had a damn [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Power_Abuse|policy]] which was after me and you want to cry about being abused? '''Grow the fuck up'''. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 12:57, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>coughs something about not being the one getting worked up* --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:06, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::::::::Id say it wasnt the old era sysops, such as Zar, myself, The Genral and such, but the generation after that which were senselessly nasty, and in some cases outright trollish, that did the nasty things of the time. They didnt pick their fights carefully, and didnt have a troll like Amazing to deal with. Fucking edit conflicts. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:11, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::::::::Thats true. I don't think that anyone from that generation is very active any more which is good for the communities atmosphere. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 13:21, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
::::::::::about which generation are you talking about Jedaz ? If you are talking about the old one, with Odd, Brent and Zar, that's the generation i appeared and, hey, i am still around. If you talking about the previous generation with Xoid, Gage and Cyberbob, hey!, cyberbob is still around! Now where is that 'anyone' you were speaking about ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:53, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:::::::::::I'm talking specifically about the Xoid, Gage, Cyberbob (XGC) generation of Sysops. Well more specifically the ones who dredged up drama, I wouldn't want to lob in Darth or Max into that group. I never really saw the oldest generation (Zar to Karl) in much drama where as XGC generation was always causing some kind of drama. Cyberbob only ever comes back once a month to stir up drama so I wouldn't call him very active. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 02:00, 31 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
:::::::::::That is a pretty arbitrary gap between the "old" and "XGC" generations you've set there, considering that the difference between me and CyberBob is about, what, one second?  I see what you mean, but seeing that, plus the deliberate culling of certain "in-favor" Sysops (Darth/Max) from that category should tell you that the entire concept of "generation" is not working for you.  I'd go with "clique" or "mafia" or some-such instead.  --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 19:53, 31 August 2007 (BST)
::::::::::::You think I'm here to stir up drama? Sorry to burst your bubble of self-righteousness, but this time I'm here to stay. Grim's return has rekindled my interest. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:32, 31 August 2007 (BST)
::::::::::::Heh, yeah I kinda noticed that myself as well after writing that. Well either way it was a group of users who came into power at a similar time where they stired up alot of drama. To CB *cough*bullshit*cough*. Care to explain why you were "offended" by me saying that you were "abrasive" and then defending why you were in the next comment. Does anyone belive that he's not here to cause drama? - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 10:29, 1 September 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
:::::::::::::I'm obviously not going to change your mind by arguing with you, so I won't. You can believe whatever you wish. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 10:32, 1 September 2007 (BST)

This could be useful in theory but in theory [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration|Arbitration]] ends to drama, reality works a little differently. A performance review like this would quickly turn into just another place to vent at sysops that people have problems with. That could be a good thing if it were done in a constructive manor but history tells us it will turn into name calling and trips to Arbys really quickly. If a sysop wants a performance review that can always pull a [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Vista/2007-05-08 Re-Evaluation|Vista]] or there is always their talk page - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 15:39, 30 August 2007 (BST)




===Idled & Drama creators===
I think the greatest need we have at the moment is a policy to remove idled out sysops. I also think there is a need to have a forced demotion policy (however I don't think this is it) to remove sysops that cause ''much more'' drama in their handling of their admin duties than they quell, even if they don't specifically abuse the sysops powers in doing it. It shouldn't be a popularity contest where good, but low profile, sysops can be removed <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 13:04 30 August 2007 (BST)</small>
:You make a comment about removing unpopular sysops, and then go on to say it shouldn't be a popularity contest? Lolwut? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:08, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:Fuck no Boxy. Any such things would quickly degenerate into vote stuffing popularity contests. A Sysop should not be beholden to the community for anything. They should obey and enforce the rules of the wiki, not pander to senseless popularity contests that such a process would create. Sysops do not exist to do anything to drama. Its not in our job description. We exist to service the wiki, removing dead pages, killing off vandals, protecting pages, and ensuring that senseless abuses, such as vote stuffing with zerg accounts doesnt happen (With our checkuser ability). Drama is for arbitration, which, suprise suprise, is an open process where anyone, sysop or not, can be the arbitrator, it is neither part of our mandate nor our duty to stop drama unless it causes problems which we can fix with our tools. We are NOT like forum moderators. We dont enforce civility or standards on people. We simply make sure that crap gets deleted, vandals get banned, and the rules get followed. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, there are cases, such as my own, where in january i lost my internet access for six months. Would i have been demoted as a slacking off mod for that? --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:18, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::While it may not be our place to stop drama, I don't think that means that we should be allowed to fuel it in the face of massive community condemnation (which is what I'm proposing as a possible trigger for a forced demotion). As to your loosing internet access and idling out, well the period of inactivity is up for debate, but I know that if I didn't contact a wiki (forum, messageboard, whatever) for 6 months (for whatever reason), I wouldn't expect to just walk back in in an admin role again at the end of it. 6 months is a long time on the interwebs :) That said, I've no problem with you still having the status <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 13:32 30 August 2007 (BST)</small>
:::Thats not what this proposed amendment suggests :( 
:::I still say that if people want to have a drama war, they should go through arbitration. An arbitration ruling allows us to warn and ban offenders. While it may take several such rulings to finally block out the loopholes, it is still an effective system for solving drama (Hell, that system eventually ended the Amazing VS Everyone drama with Amazing violating one and getting permad). Most drama wars are limited however, and are breif. For example, Nalikill tried to drama me through the Vandal banning and Arb pages (And lost both times. Was like swatting a fly). That whole drama thing was ended in only a few hours, and only carried on because he insisted on bringing it up again. You would need some very complex ideas of what counts for drama. For example, if other users insist on picking a fight with a Sysop, he is well within his rights to pound them in retaliation. If the community doesnt like it? Tough. People shouldnt start what they cant finish. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 15:10, 30 August 2007 (BST)
::::I know that isn't what this policy suggests, and I wouldn't vote for it, as is. Perhaps some process where demotions could be forced (not through regular reevaluations) if a huge majority (66-75% or something) voted "kill"? <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 02:05 1 September 2007 (BST)</small>
:::::There you go again with the popularity contests, Boxy. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:14, 1 September 2007 (BST)
::::::Cyberbob is quite right here... you're not proposing something different OR better, but a suggestion that has the very same flaws as mine and some more. You have the same popularity vote, but this time with a set number of votes, thus vulnerable to meatpupettery, and without a set time to start the review, so the requests for demotion will repeat one after another without a proper limit as long as any user still posts them. I'm putting this for voting when the 3 days are up, and if the text doesn't seem to satisfy the community I'll try to write another version and discuss it more throughly. Anyways, I'm still open for ideas! --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:06, 1 September 2007 (BST)
:::::::Flaw one that it would fix... everyone feeling they had to have a say on every sysops "reevaluation", even if they hadn't noticed that the user was a sysops (in which case they would more likely vote kill, IMO). Anyways, there was a big "''perhaps''" in there... it's not something I've put much thought into <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 13:34 3 September 2007 (BST)</small>

:I'ld support removal of idled out sysops. However an issue that has been brought up before (by grim I belive?) is that some sysops would log in just before a certain time period and make an edit just so they can keep their position. Theres a difference between idle and lurking, something which can not be detected by other users. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 13:21, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
::I have no problem with lurking sysops, or making token edits to retain the position. Only the removal of long abandoned accounts from the sysops list <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 13:32 30 August 2007 (BST)</small>
:::Well I would agree on a one year length (maybe a few months shorter). Of course you should look at the [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/idledemotions|recommended reading]] first though to get an idea of the original perceptions and why that policy failed. - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 13:50, 30 August 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>

Boxy was referring to sysops who inflame drama THEMSELVES. That type of behavior really shouldn't be going on, it's totally unprofessional and counterproductive. And being unprofessional has NOTHING to do with popularity. And it doesn't necessarily have to do with a sysop simply being abrasive or controversial -- though it could, if such is excessive and causes problems. This could be a touchy issue, though... But, really, I can't see why anyone reasonable and confident in their skills and social acuity would have any problem with a "Code of Sysop Conduct". The real wikipedia has one, why can't we? Especially if, as many have noted above, there aren't any real problems with the sysops these days.... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 30 August 2007 (BST)
:SysOps opinions weights as much as those from regular users. They usually are involved in some kind of drama because of the nature of their job, that is to punish others and get in fights that arent theirs. Sysops can create Drama too, as long as they dont use their status as badge of reason or abuse their powers to suit their needs. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:57, 30 August 2007 (BST)

===Further Discussion===
Well, I readed everyone's comments twice, and this is what I think:
*Good but low profile Sysops aren't at all in risk of being demoted. Sure, they will get less support than an high profile sysop, but in the same way their reviews won't have that many people against them. I think the fears of low profile Sysops being demoted while high profile ones are kept are infunded, brought by the very same persons that don't want to lose their powers no matter what as a pitiful excuse: "your policy will backfire, I'll bring all my friends and remain but the low profiles haven't any". I'm sure that idled out Sysops could get the boot, and that's not a bad thing, but an user that is actively contributing would have "vouchs" since the start from the most active users and thus those that aren't aware of their contributions (most of them new users) would see the past votes and realize the Sysop isn't iddle. All those "low profile" Sysops you talk about got almost unanimous promotions bid in their favor when they were promoted: if it's the same system, why would they get kicked now? It makes no sense as an argument.
*Ironically, Arbitration is being defended as a valid system to get people doing wrong things banned by the very same group of users that mock it the most! You can see Grim and Sonny constantly use "Chewbacca" defenses in their cases, not following proper procedures, moking them altogether, etc. Arbitration needs a change too and I'm actually trying to adress that in another, future policy.
*While I agree that most of the problem defused and a change in Administrational style was brough by the latest changes in the Administrational team (by the demotion of Sysops and the promotion of new ones alike) we still see people endorsing a trollish behaviour EVEN INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATIONAL TEAM. A change can't be brought if the people at the upper spheres refuse to change and/or make sacrifices (say, exchanging their so called "free speech" for the very same thing combined with a little more responsibility).
That said, I agree with boxy and other users that another system could be used. I readed the forced demotions things and all but I can't come up with a system that measures better community dessire than this one: how can we guess when the community "wants" a change without asking them? what number of people constitutes a "significant portion" of the community? While the policy may sound pretty bad for some, it adresses these problems in the best way possible. Well, it's almost as reposting oneself for promotions every 6 months: we already promote people based on "popular" vote, yet people seems to abhor the idea of "popular" reviews! This also makes no sense.

I think that this policy summed up by the future addition of more people to the Administrational team in order to dilute individualities will work just great. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:51, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:Never be satisfied with the status quo, to do so is to accept an unsatisfactory system instead of trying to improve it.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 04:56, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:PROTIP: Promotion bids ''shouldn't be popularity votes''. They are not being treated in the fashion with which they were intended to be. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:34, 31 August 2007 (BST)
::This is true, but IMHO you're making a misconception: the bureaucrats have seemed to follow the majority's wishes because they pretty much reflect their own, not because they feel intimidated or misinterpretated the rules, so they ARE treating Promotion bids in the way they should be. While I'm all out for Bureaucrats making decissions based purely on the pros and cons that were brought afloat on discussion and not a simple majority vote (like a Bureaucrat promoting after a bid with 50 against with the same concern and 10 vouchs with different pros) I think this has been followed quite well and, as a side comment, I further encourage the current and future Bureaucrats to do as they feel they should and shake off any doubts they could have while doing so. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 09:08, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:::Geeze matt. Get a fucking clue. First: Once != Constantly, you retard. Second: The Chewbacca defense was a fucking joke, in its own fucking section, to lighten the mood, and it wasnt for anyone. No one signed it, and it had no effect on the outcome of the case. I take your comment to mean that you are both against facts and fun on the wiki. Not only that, but he also doesnt believe people can ever change their minds over time! What a fucking Moron you are Matt! Your claiming that this use of fun is a mockery of the system is, quite frankly, insane. I believe that i once thought the system as a joke because anyone could put themselves up as an arbitrator, and thus you could have the ultimate bias there. I tried to change it several times as well on the talk page, but didnt have any luck. That said, this was during the drama whore days of Amazing, Rueful, Scinfaxi and Jjames, who had all put themselves up there while lacking anything remotely resembling impartiality on anything at all. It was patently obvious that they were shitting on the system. These days, with those massive drama fests behind us, i think the arb page can be useful in sorting that sort of shit out, on the condition that it is carried out in a responsible manner. Once again matt is left standing, foot firmly embedded in his mouth, and nary a realistic comment to be seen. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 10:58, 31 August 2007 (BST)
::::Please keep your comments purely constructive. Calling someone a retard and a moron is not helpful, it's not good faith and it will only serve to turn a discussion into a personal "us" vs "them" conflict instead of a conflict of ideas. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 12:55, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:::::I call em as i see em. Posting blatant falsehoods about another user is equally capable of turning discussions in the manner you describe, yet i didnt see you calling him on it. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:52, 31 August 2007 (BST)

::::::Just a few paragraphs up Grim sez "Id say it wasnt the old era sysops, such as Zar, myself, The Genral and such, but the generation after that which were senselessly nasty, and in some cases outright trollish, that did the nasty things of the time..." I laughed when i read it, I didn't think i would get to quote it so soon tho :). I cannot think of a single user on this wiki who is so abusive or obnoxious, no-one comes close and a few do seem to try! Vitually every post i see you make these days is not so much trollish but outright venomous.... have you considered counselling? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:04, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:::::::Actually thats not entirely fair and frequently those you abuse do indeed deserve it. You do however exhibit bias in your posts (particularly where Matt is concerned) and your attitude often stinks worse than whatever you turn your venom on... Try toning it down just a little, yes there are a lot of Asshats on the wiki but disagreeing with you should not automatically put someone in that category!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (BST)
::::::::I'm just a cuddly teddy bear once you get to know me. Admittedly, i breathe fire and have dehydrated acid for stuffing, but a teddy nontheless. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, have a problem with people being stupid. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:45, 1 September 2007 (BST)
::::As I said whe referring to the group of users that mock Arbitration, you have constantly used [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive3#Matthewfarenheit_vs._Saromu|Chewbacca arguments]] and generally [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive2#MrAushvitz_vs_Gage|mocked cases]] (sorry for no dif links, but they would be a bother to get). When I said you didn't follow proper procedures, we can easily see this on your latest cases, when there were no rebutals while they are mandatory according to the [[A/A|Arbitration page rules]]. The rest of your personal comments against me are based on those very mistaken assumptions. Talking about past wiki issues and present ones with a person that has been off or barely active for so much time is proving stressfull, so keep yourself and your comments informed and the arguments themselves constructive as pointed by other users alike or I'll be forced to refrain from replying such things. About you trying to change Arbitration in the past, users have only to see the current state of the page and judge by themselves. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 19:10, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:::::The "current state of the page" is for two users and/or groups that have edit conflicts to work out what exactly needs to be on what page.  The fact that it is used constantly as a "Wah wah wah This Person Is Mean To Me" device is ''why'' the Chewbacca Defense is used- because bringing someone to Arby's for a nice Re-Hash-Brown lunch over Dead Horse Burger issues '''Makes No Sense'''.  --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 19:53, 31 August 2007 (BST)
:::::You specifically said "''You can see Grim and Sonny constantly use "Chewbacca" defenses in their cases''". It was only once, in its own section, completely irrelevant to the proceedings, and done as a joke. But, for you, Once==Always! Another fine example of Matts supa strong reasoning skills! And you are telling me to keep informed and constructive, when it is you who are making the comments that are utterly absurd, with now foundation in fact whatsoever? Give me a fucking break! Trying to take the high and mighty approach to dig yourself out of the whole you are in is patently absurd, especially when you compare your actions here with your earlier comments. ''*Sniffs matt's posts*'' - Ah... the smell of Hypocrisy! Oh, but why would i just leave it at this, when i can show how you spew your falshoods and expect everyone to swallow it as if it were the one and only truth! As detailed earlier, you claimed that i '''always''' used the Chewbacca defense. Well, guess what, only once, and as an aside to the case, which was decided without reference to it. Whoops, One of Matt's lies bites the dust. You directly imply that no one can change their mind over time: "''Arbitration is being defended as a valid system to get people doing wrong things banned by the very same group of users that mock it the most!''" - (This comment is imediately followed by the earlier quoute, naming myself) Whoops, i havent mocked it since the end of the Amazing Drama more than a year ago. But no, mind changing is not allowed, especially not over times as great as 14 months. No sir. And another of Matts lies, this time a strong implication, bites the dust, along with its friend. "''not following proper procedures, moking them altogeter''" - Immediately follows the first quote, right after i have been named. Guess what Matt, as a person being arbitrated, i didnt get to decide the rules. That was Sonny. Trying to lump me in is absurd, especially since i never commented on the shortness of the case compared to others. Whoops, there goes another falshood of yours, this time trying to guilt me by association. Im not sure what i should do with these lies and falsehoods? Maybe i could make a quilt? Then, after you have made all these blatant untruths, you acftually have the balls to stand up and say "''keep yourself and your comments informed''". HAHAHAHAHA!!!! In summary: I only called Matt one thing in this post: A Hypocrite, and then i justified that remark wuth three examples. The tone is nicely mocking, however. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 00:03, 1 September 2007 (BST)
::::::Grimch, you do realise that posts like that are what boxy is talking about when it comes to "pointless drama"? Whether or not you are right or wrong is irrelevant, your tone seems to be designed to deliberately annoy the people you are talking to, rather than informing them of your opinion... and that's what results in gigantic pages of useless "internet posturing" which stifles actual debate by making the signal-to-noise ratio so high that it becomes impossible to read.--[[User:Generator killer|Generator killer]] 12:42, 1 September 2007 (BST)
:::::::Pardon me, but he started it with his baseless lies. And that wasnt part of a debate, it was a direct rebuttal of attacks he made against me, with a reprisal tossed in. It was entirely intended to be offensive to Matt (Indeed, the last comment practically admits to being just that), just as his was intentionally offensive towards me. The difference is that i do it a lot better than him, and i can sit in the realms of factual information while doing so. Why dont you go give matt your speil, seeing as how he started it. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Special:listadmins|Sysop]]-[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:45, 1 September 2007 (BST)
::::::{{pre|Grimch, you do realise that posts like that are what boxy is talking about when it comes to "pointless drama"?}} Not really. I was more thinking of some of the historical drama (this isn't a shade on it) where people would go out of their way to annoy other users. Debating heatedly on stuff that you care about isn't "pointless drama" <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 13:25 3 September 2007 (BST)</small>

: - Mommy, mommy, but Matthew started it!
: - But Mommy, mommy Grimch was picking on me!
:''Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn...'' Take it to the bike racks, kids... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:03, 3 September 2007 (BST)

:Users are voting for by almost 2:1, active Sysops are voting against by 9:1 (Only Darth Sensitive breaking ranks).  The real story is, with thousands of players only 34 users are engaged and invested enough in the wiki to post a vote.  --[[User:Dylan Mak Tyme|Dylan Mak Tyme]] 14:40, 16 September 2007 (BST)

== Discussion moved from voting page ==
=== Discussion from Toejam vote ===
Just thought I'd point out that they already are, it's what [[A/M|Misconduct]] is for, if they do something they aren't allowed to do they already will be punished severely.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 13:17, 3 September 2007 (BST)
:I was just coming back here to add that misconduct isn't sufficient - just the same as you wouldn't elect a prime minister and keep him in power until he gets arrested. Sysoping has nuances beyond mere following of the rules, and a sysop who who acts in defiance of massive community condemnation but without breaking a rule, should not be a sysop. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 13:23, 3 September 2007 (BST)
:Agreed... the community can't have it both ways. You can't set extra rules over a sysop's behaviour when their voice is treated equally with regular users' in discussions. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:19, 3 September 2007 (BST)
::This policy wouldn't set extra rules over a sysop's behaviour. But it would allow the non-sysop community to have more power in how it's run. It helps solidify the notion that sysops are just regular users, and not some eternal aristocracy. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 13:29, 3 September 2007 (BST)
:::An unpopular user (for that's what this would become, a popularity contest) does not have to worry about backlash. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:45, 3 September 2007 (BST)
:::In answer to your comment on breaking rules in the face of community opinion: ''that'' would be grounds for Misconduct. If the community is so unanimous on an issue, they should ''change the rules''. Sysops are already beholden to the community, Toejam. If they don't like the guidelines they themselves voted in, tough. They can, of course, vote to have the offending rule removed, but attacking the guy who enforced it is ludicrous. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 13:55, 3 September 2007 (BST)
::::Imagine a policeman on speed camera duty. He has his rules- if someone goes over 35 mph, he must stop them and give them a ticket. Then he sees an ambulance. Its lights are flashing, the siren's blaring, and it's rushing to the hospital. The policeman pulls him over - it's what the rules tell him to do. The ambulance driver tells the constable there's a patient in the back, and that there'll be serious consequences for the patient's health if the ambulance doesn't get to the hospital ASAP. But the officer just says "You must wait for a ticket - it's the rules." In the end the patient doesn't get to the hospital in time and dies.
::::Rules are never meant to cover ''every'' situation, and every rule will have unforeseen exceptions. The only solution is for the people who enforce the rules to do so with common sense. When a sysop fails to do that, it has negative consequences for the wiki, and the sysop should not remain a sysop. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 14:27, 3 September 2007 (BST)
:::::Bad analogy. I believe the laws actually allow emergency vehicles to pretty much ignore a lot of the road rules when dealing with an emergency, which they signal when they turn on their sirens. They run red lights, exceed the speed limit, and ive even seen them charge down the other side of the road on occasion. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 15:39, 3 September 2007 (BST)
::::::Yeah, I'm not happy with that analogy either, even though it was the best I could come up with at the time. You're right about the exceptions to the emergency vehicles. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 18:51, 3 September 2007 (BST)