UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Reevaluations

Open for discussion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:29, 22 July 2009 (BST)

So basically

A kind of re-tooling of the promotions system? I think that's a great way to go about it - bureaucrats are supposedly trusted even more than sysops and it eliminates almost all of the concerns people were raising over the other one. --Cyberbob 01:32, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Yup. You still have the guidelines for the regular users, and I just applied that system to the sysops. That gets your regular evaluations and should stem any trust arguments. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:42, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As Bob. This lets the community have a say about how a sysop is doing without having to rely on a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:45, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Timing

I think 6 months is too often. We'll be having constant reevaluations, often multiple ones going at the same time. I'd prefer at least every 12 month, with the sysop having the option to go early at any time before that if they wish -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:13 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think 6 months is okay, but we do need to spread them out. Each period is six months. The initial round of reviews starts with the oldest 'op, then a one month period until the next 'op goes? That way everyone gets a review in due time, but it's not all clustered together.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:16, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You have ten at the moment who would be reviewable. You could separate them out to do one a month until each sysop has their review. The thing would be that you'd have some overlap with it. We'll have to put something i about a crat who is just coming out of being a crat (which I would assume they would be re-evaluated at six months from losing the crat position). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds fine - might want to make that clear in the policy (about reevaluations of crats.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:40, 22 July 2009 (BST)

How about one a month (starting with the oldest sysop, as above), but instead of repeating every six months, starting evaluations again at the end of the cycle. Crats you get demoted could just be added in next, o that it keeps repeating.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:32, 23 July 2009 (BST)

One a year could be workable. You have 10 up for review, and you could effectively assign people months. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The thing I like about allowing a sysop some latitude to choose their own timing (by going early) though, is that they can choose a time when they haven't been involved in a drama session, so that their review will be based on their long term performance, rather than the mood at the time. The wiki goes through periods where the admins as a whole get glowing recommendations, and others where they're seen as failing as a group, to say nothing of the occasional stuff up, or piece of stupidity by individuals, even if they are, on the whole, good sysops. Reviews should be held in calm circumstances, if possible, so the evaluation isn't based on the emotion of the time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:38 22 July 2009 (BST)

Unnecessary. The decision is not a vote.... 'Crats are elected because, supposedly, they can address the merits of promotions/demotion objectively. So everyone tells me....

And as per my suggestion earlier... I support 6 months, a year is an eternity on this wiki, 6 months is appropriate. However, I also say the commenting period should only be 1 week b/c the sysop has already been approved, this is a review not a new nomination. --WanYao 03:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps an initial 6 months evaluation, then yearly? Because users can change after being promoted, but they don't often change their style much after they have settled in. I just don't want to see the wiki flooded with even more admin drama by having continuous promotion/reevaluation drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:54 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think you'll need a compromise somewhere if you want that to work, Box, because 12 months is a very long time, far to long in my opinion. Maybe 6-8 months? --ϑϑℜ 04:07, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'll be more inclined to agree with a year then six months (per Boxy's reasoning.) We don't need constant renewal drama (although I don't really have much of a problem with six months - I just think a year will be better.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:40, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think 6 months is a bit too long.... maybe 4 months... or we could have an election every 6 months an a renewal every 3 months --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 03:34, 22 July 2009 (BST)

6 months is fine, don't be a git --WanYao 03:36, 22 July 2009 (BST)

=P Whats a git? --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 03:37, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Don't create drama for drama's sake, that's all. --WanYao 13:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Truly this is supreme irony. --Cyberbob 16:56, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Some thoughts on the process. Bulleted for ease of viewing.

• 6 months is too frequent while 12 months seems to be considered too long... how about split the difference and call it 9 months?
• I like the idea of limiting the comments period to just 7 days as well, most of the useful stuff has been said by then anyway
• A Crats term before evaluation should include the time they have been in office but that election should be regarded as having been their last evaluation.
• Should the review period be pushed back beyond the currently favoured 6 months then I would agree with Boxy that sysops should be able to launch the appraisal early.
• Passing a sysop's review against clear community backlash should be misconductable with a punishment of immediate loss of crathood (if not full demotion) if found guilty. I can't see this happening but it should be clear that it is frowned upon without good reason.
• If passed I would suggest 1 sysop a week is evaluated until all have been done, starting with the longest standing. I would also say that there should never be more than 2 evaluations going on at the same time.

Thats about it really for now...--Honestmistake 16:52, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't have a problem with 9 months. I also don't mind boxy's idea of six months at first and then yearly thereafter. 9 might be that happy middle ground. We'll have to see what other people think on the time-frame. The argument for having the re-evaluations taking place over one week has merit. It doesn't waste the community's time, but I worry that people might miss it. I think if we reduce it to one week we should have a notification of the next sysop up for re-evaluation on the re-evaluation page, much like we track activity on the demotions page. I discuss the bureaucrat situation of evaluation timing below, so I will leave that to be discussed down there. As for point 5, I don't agree that this policy should dictate any terms in this policy for what the sysops should do for misconduct proceedings because of this policy. I believe that each case should be evaluated and run through misconduct as usual. If modifications to misconduct proceedings needs to be made, then that should be a separate policy. As for the last point, I agree with the idea to give a buffer between re-evaluations. Perhaps one week on, two/three weeks off, one week on, etc. That would give the community a break for a bit each time until everyone is caught up. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:27, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The crats descision should not be misconductable. If you (and or the community at large) don't like a descision made by a 'crat vote them out when their time comes. You cant impeach a member of the house just because he voted for a tax hike. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

And another point, just so everybody is clear...The first two up would be the General and myself. The General has about a month on me. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

The "misconduct" bit is really aimed at the highly implausible idea of 2 crats ignoring a very clear mandate from pretty much the whole community. I also suggest it should be worthy of a case not automatic so that they can defend the case against obvious meat/sock puppeting and the like. --Honestmistake 14:29, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Any excuse to demonstrate your "respectable" age on this wiki... --ϑϑℜ 14:48, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Dont be a dick --Cyberbob 14:49, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I M TEH NEW GRIMS --ϑϑℜ 14:51, 23 July 2009 (BST)

The 'crats decision should be entirely misconductable. Crats do have their biases (Not every 'Crat, but some) after all, and ignoring this makes the policy completely irrelevant, because 'Crats can keep whoever they want. --User:Axe27/Sig 21:15, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Thats why you can vote them out in the next election if you dont like their decisions.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:22, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Agreed which is why I stress again: Misconductable only in extreme cases Even then the sysops would have to vote on their action making it need an extremely unusual set of circumstances for it to actually happen. --Honestmistake 21:29, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Basically, the guidelines for this policy are almost identical to the sysop promotions, so anything that is misconductable there, is misconductable here. The reason why I don't want to dictate any misconduct rules in the policy is that each and every misconduct case is unique, and should be considered separately. Now, if you feel that the UDWiki:Administration/Promotions have an flaw that needs to be addressed, a separate policy should be made, because this policy is just concerning setting up a system for sysop re-evaluations. Otherwise, I don't want to do too much in this one policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:59, 24 July 2009 (BST)

So, Timeframe

What are we looking at here? Six months and then yearly, or nine months? I'd like to try and get a consensus. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:34, 24 July 2009 (BST)

9 monts is my current favourite. I don't like the idea of moving the goal posts so keeping it simple seems far better to me.--Honestmistake 22:43, 24 July 2009 (BST)

8 months, because I hate odd numbers.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:51, 24 July 2009 (BST)

They all sound so delicious. I like six than yearly. I would say try them all, but there's an obvious fallacy with trying that... :/ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:54, 24 July 2009 (BST)

9? I guess. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:56, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Ross is lying, he meant 8.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:58, 24 July 2009 (BST)

That number is an abomination.... it will summon tentacled beasties from the dungeon dimensions to come and do things beyond the ken o mankind... Of course it might be nice to have Grim back ;) --Honestmistake 00:28, 25 July 2009 (BST)

How long is it until Grimdepedence day ?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:38, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Never, for i am the reincarnation of Grim S! Notice my lack of using the proper capitilization of the letter i and my spelling errors?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:05, 25 July 2009 (BST)

False Prophet!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:26, 26 July 2009 (BST)

nou--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:34, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Its all clear now.... SA really is Grim! Someone haul his ass to A/VB while i get the evidence of him sockpuppeting votes ;)--Honestmistake 01:25, 27 July 2009 (BST)

8 is fine with me. Boxy, how does 8 months sound? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:23, 27 July 2009 (BST)

It doesn't matter, got with the glorious 8th numerical in the number line. :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:43, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Added. That look acceptable to everyone? The time-frame at least? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:59, 27 July 2009 (BST)

8 months seems fine to me. --ϑϑℜ 01:46, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Yes!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:25, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Wording

Point one looks screwy. "Significant time within the community. - We define this as at least 3 months since the candidate's last edit." What are you trying to say? Right now it seems to imply that you have to be inactive for three months.--Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:46, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'll admit I'm a little confused about this point in the context of re-evaluation aswell... --ϑϑℜ 04:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I was trying to stick with the original text as much as possible. It now reads: "Significant time within the community as a sysop. - We define this as the candidate has made at least one edit in the at least 3 months." It still sounds rough, and I'd like it to be as close to the original guidelines verbiage as possible. I don't have much time today to mess with extra stuff, but I'll keep mulling it over in the back of my head while I am at work today. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:55, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds good - you might want to change "in the at least 3 months" to "in the past 3 months" and "has made" to "having made" so as to make it grammatically sound though. --Cyberbob 20:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Excellent. That was bothering me. I've changed it to reflect the new phrasing. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:34, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I don't understand why this policy is so long and complicated. The salient points are that every 6 months a sysop must be reviewed by the community. The process would work identically to regular promotions, except the discussion need only last 1 week (Numbers are as per what seems to be the consensus in this discussion). And crats will not come up for such a review. So, Akule, can you strip your policy down to these bare-bone, salient points? --WanYao 03:07, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Because he's being thorough?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:30, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Thor-ough? What is thor-ough? Sorry, you'll have to keep it short - I have issues with reading posts for more than two lines. --Cyberbob 21:31, 23 July 2009 (BST)

But it's only one line. are you sure you don't just have trouble with multi-syllable words?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:36, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I'm simply copying the Promotions guidelines over to the re-evaluations. I need to include some extra information (such as the impact on crats, voluntary re-evaluations, and timing), simply because this system requires it to be present. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:03, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Being pedantic

Sysop Reevaluations said:

If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria.

Also remove the significant time within the community header - it's not really needed since after four months a sysop will be demoted anyway. It just seems a bit pointless to have the header there. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:43, 22 July 2009 (BST)

It's exactly what was in the original promotion guidelines, but how does this sound: "If a user is highly exemplary in one guideline, a certain level of flexibility may be extended to the other guidelines." As for the significant time, I altered it as per the discussion one heading above. Let me know how that sounds. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:13, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I had a look at the A/PM guidelines after posting this and realized my mistake. Your suggestion sounds fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Crat Elections

What if someone's just been promoted to crat? Surely thats a vote of trust. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:55, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The policy summary wrote:

* Current bureaucrats are exempt from this review process due to their own review process.

Does that answer your question? :p --Cyberbob 09:58, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Thats what I like about you bob. You save me having to read. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I came very very close to posting the exact same question you did but by pure chance I spotted that line out of the corner of my eye. --Cyberbob 10:35, 22 July 2009 (BST)

That's what I like about bob too! He's saved me from reading walls of text quite a few times. :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:52, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I assumed it would be the same as Wan's, which I think was discussed under the same circumstances, so yes. I do have one issue though... I'm assuming that the Crats will have the 6 months (or however long the revaluations are between) added onto their term as Crat? Otherwise a crat would have a good chance of their term running through their evaluation. My only concern is, after 2 or so Crat terms, should the crat now be automatically cycled? If being a crat means the user is exempt from evaluation without question, well, their may be an issue with meatpuppetry being used to push unpopular sysops into crat by a minority, or even over a long term to avoid evaluation. I'm just poking around as possible weaknesses so we can discuss. Does anyone see this as a potential issue? --ϑϑℜ 14:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)

It's a potential issue but an unlikely one. I don't like the idea of crats reviewing crats (hint there, SA ;),) as it falls on one user to make the decision on a promontion case not the usual two. Less collective experience, etc. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:38, 22 July 2009 (BST)

My thought was that the bureaucrat nominations were effectively a form of evaluation, so when they are no longer bureaucrats, the time for their re-evaluation would be six months from the last successful nomination to bureaucrat. I.e. if boxy got bureaucrat today (as in, was appointed on 7/22/09) and then three months later lost it, then his next re-evaluation would be six months later (1/22/10). I can see that meatpuppetry could be used to nominate an ineffective sysop to a bureaucrat position for multiple terms for the ability to avoid the re-evaluation, but I would assume that the community or Kevan would strike that sysop down. It is a possible flaw, but I believe that might need to be addressed in the bureaucrat elections guidelines, as it could occur there even if this policy is implemented (i.e. meatpuppetry that nominates a particular bureaucrat). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:31, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. I didn't have it in my head that Crat elections would be a form of evaluation in itself, don't ask why. --ϑϑℜ 04:45, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I'll add the information on crats to the policy to clarify things. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:07, 24 July 2009 (BST)

How does that look? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:32, 24 July 2009 (BST)

You know what might be a better idea?

Instead of making a policy that wastes people's time like Karek explained the last time this came up: (It wastes the communities time having them vote on something for no reason. It's a crat decision then the crats should decide it, not have a popular opinion poll before they do.--Karek 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)) Why not just every 6 months put up Grim's old page of Which Sysops do you trust? and let that flame war/drama fest burn for 2 weeks? That should be enough to get it out of everyone's system. I'm semi-serious here. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:59, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As long as we can have the comments on grim framed at the top of the page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I strongly doubt that anyone would see the opportunity to either show their support for a sysop they think does a good job or to express their disgruntlement with a sysop they think is doing a bad job as a waste of time. :P
Shortening the vote period to one week instead of two as someone (Wan?) suggested above would allow most people to get their "votes" in while not taking up too much time. Besides - I'm sure that the crats would take what the community says into account. --Cyberbob 16:10, 22 July 2009 (BST)

They haven't in the past when it comes to promotions or do I have to summon the bitter one again?  :) --– Nubis ^NWO 19:53, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Well technically they were acting in accordance with the "will of the community" - pretty much the only people who were against him being promoted were the sysops IIRC. --Cyberbob 20:02, 22 July 2009 (BST)

One week should be fine. HM had a decent reason for this above, and it sounds reasonable to me. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:29, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I second this. --ϑϑℜ 17:14, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I third this.--User:Axe27/Sig 21:10, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Fourth'd. Trust is a fickle thing, and be sure you lay down what you mean by "trust".--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:01, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Certainly. Please start a policy to clarify what a trusted user means here. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:35, 24 July 2009 (BST)

HEY

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

Stop the drama

--Orange Talk 16:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

This is by far the less dramariffic of the two evaluation policies ;p --Cyberbob 16:58, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, this is the most positive thing going through the wiki at the moment. --ϑϑℜ 17:02, 22 July 2009 (BST)

So the fact that I'm trying to make a change in A/VB for the good of everyone isn't positive? ;_; --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

BLINKING TEXT! :P Wai so much drama guize? Sysops be sysops, complaining makes mod abuse worse. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:04, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Especially when most of the complaints are untrue, or said with no verifiable facts. :'( --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:07, 22 July 2009 (BST)

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

DRAMA ART GOOD

--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 04:27, 7 August 2009 (BST)

Voluntary Sysop Re-evaluation

There you go boxy. I felt we should have some buffer between times when a sysop can voluntary re-evaluate themselves, in order to prevent possible problems or abuse of the system. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:24, 24 July 2009 (BST)

S'alright, depending on how long the terms end up being (after discussion above) it could be made longer -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:39 25 July 2009 (BST)

Guidelines

The whole section under "note that before they can be re-evaluated, the following guidelines should be met by the candidate", listing requirements before re-evaluation should go. Copying over from A/PM just doesn't work. Existing sysops have already met the criteria on A/PM when they were promoted, the only requirement for evaluation should be that they are already a sysop, they arn't inactive (and so qualify for demotion through existing policy), and they have been serving for X months without a re-evaluation. What you're listing there are things that the community needs to consider in the evaluation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:39 25 July 2009 (BST)

Seconded. --ϑϑℜ 04:37, 27 July 2009 (BST)

I suppose I could. Out of curiosity, what is wrong with those? I thought those were pretty standard for sysops. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:28, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Just the concept of minimum edits for sysops... It is non-existent, unless already governed by policy. The statement "Before they may be re-evaluated, they must have the following" implies that a sysop is unsuitable for even running for revaluation without, say, 500 edits in the last 8 months. What if they don't have 500 edits in that time? Do they avoid revaluation until they make that sum of edits? Of course they don't, they get put up anyway under not-so-favourable circumstances, which is why the clause is unnecessary, except as a guide, rather than a prerequisite. --ϑϑℜ 01:52, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Don't forget: If a user is highly exemplary in one guideline, a certain level of flexibility may be extended to the other guidelines. as a way to address that. Honestly, I don't see that as really a problem. It's not like I'm specifying a certain kind of edits, and we can easily extend that out or lower if we really need to. I just figured I would copy that over because it seemed weird to have 500 edits in six months as a prerequisite for a normal user to be a sysop, but then find it acceptable to have one edit per every four months once they become one. It's a good discussion point. Thoughts? Opinions? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:05, 28 July 2009 (BST)

That's what I'm saying. At the moment the wording implies it is a prerequisite to being legible for evaluation at all. --ϑϑℜ 02:25, 28 July 2009 (BST)

I tweaked the wording. How does that look? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:41, 28 July 2009 (BST)

I'd prefer wording that this is what they should be judged on during their evaluation bid, not before, but it's better now. --ϑϑℜ 03:52, 28 July 2009 (BST)

It's worse. Get rid of the section, it's of no relevance once someone is already a sysop, other than a guide to what users should be looking to consider when giving an opinion on the re-evaluation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:38 28 July 2009 (BST)

That's an interesting idea. I'll make some changes. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:50, 31 July 2009 (BST)

How about now? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:10, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Seperate Page

While we are discussing the policy, is it anyone else's interest that we hold this on a separate page from A/PM? Not only is it the obvious issue of not being a promotion bid but evaluation, but does anyone else think this may steal the thunder of other users wishing to put a promotion bid up of themselves? How would a user feel if they wanted to put a bid up, but knowing that 25 or so weeks every year (current sysops + week bid + every 8 months) they will have to share the focus of the community with someone else? Perhaps we should discuss making a new administration page for this. In any case, I strongly believe we should have separate archives to the current A/PM archives, anyway. --ϑϑℜ 02:00, 28 July 2009 (BST)

I agree. We have Demotions on a separate page, after all. Call it, what A/RPM? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:06, 28 July 2009 (BST)

A/RE or A/RV for revaluations, rather than promotions. --ϑϑℜ 02:23, 28 July 2009 (BST)

What about A/2C ?? :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD --xoxo 04:27, 29 July 2009 (BST)

I like A/RE. --Cyberbob 04:31, 29 July 2009 (BST)

I can go for that. --ϑϑℜ 10:30, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Can it not be an acronym of Admin/Renewing Sysop Evaluation...--Honestmistake 10:43, 29 July 2009 (BST)

It's ReEvaluation, not what you suggested. In either case, what do you suggest then? --ϑϑℜ 11:06, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Edit: In fact you are the only person in this entire page to use the word 'renew'. Where did you even get the idea of using it, let alone not using it? --ϑϑℜ 11:34, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Oh my god I'm a failure. --ϑϑℜ 11:35, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Epic lols --Honestmistake 15:59, 29 July 2009 (BST)

A/RSE, seems good to me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:22 29 July 2009 (BST)

Having 3 letters breaks the norm of the shortcuts. You could make it A/PM/SE, as a subsections of promotions? --ϑϑℜ 11:31, 29 July 2009 (BST)

aaaaah! Just make it A/SE, or Administration/Sysop Evaluation. --Cyberbob 11:33, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Would also break the norm that we don't include more then one slash in shortcuts, even for subpages - see A/BP. I agree with A/RE, btw. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:35, 29 July 2009 (BST)

A/D/S. --ϑϑℜ 11:38, 29 July 2009 (BST)

A/D/S is one thing, A/PM/SE is quite another. We should be aiming to keep the redirects as short as possible. --Cyberbob 11:42, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Just make it A/RE for gods sake, and stop ARSING around ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:43 29 July 2009 (BST)

That was the first suggestion... sigh. --ϑϑℜ 11:45, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, but this whole conversation was so worth the little sidetracking. Comedy gold :D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:48 29 July 2009 (BST)

Not as funny as rain in Chile. --ϑϑℜ 11:52, 29 July 2009 (BST)

It's funny because it's not happening to me :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:57 29 July 2009 (BST)

Alright, so it's been decided. We're going with A/RSE.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:09, 29 July 2009 (BST)

A/LiM? --ϑϑℜ 00:05, 30 July 2009 (BST)

I like your A/RSE idea. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:07, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Annual Sysop Scrutiny seems at least as valid. --Honestmistake 18:00, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Tempting. ;) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:12, 31 July 2009 (BST)

I made a section for the separate page, and addressed archiving. Is there anything else we should add to that section? Are people fine with A/RE? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:12, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Pretty sure there has been a consensus for A/RSE.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:38, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Are we seriously going for that? Or was that just a joke? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:53, 3 August 2009 (BST)

What's the Desired Effect/What will happen?

This seems to be the sticking point with most policies made in the "ZOMG BAN SYSOPS" campaigns. What do you want to happen and how far is it from anything that could possibly happen from a policy like this? Are you making a policy so you have an excuse to demote a sysop you can stir up the community against for a short period of time but can't get the support to make it clear that they're largely not welcome? Is there any reason to this policy beyond you want sysops to have to show they have support and if so aren't there better ways of doing that, ones that don't require them to kiss ass for their own well being but rather encourage real and qualitatively honest input on both sides, not who can make the best stump speech? Annual reevaluation is a bad idea.?</ br></ br>It's a bad idea because no matter what the intention is it won't have that effect unless the intention is literally just to have a way to force through demotions on people who you have not other more legitimate means to remove by, say, proving that there's a need for them to be reevaluated before they are, that there's an actual legitimate desire in the community for the sysop to be reassessed with the possibility of promotion. If you want to do this right develop a neutral group of users who's job is to simply determine the validity of a reassessment and reopening of most closed administrative processes, make it separate from the sysops and generally insulated against the shenanigans that take place on the admin pages, make them actually have to consider the communities consensus not just x vote spam amount. That's the right way to go about this, stop half-assing policies and certainly stop with this refusal to trust positions nonsense, it's just petty anal retentive personal drama that has nothing to do with how to legitimately run the system and actually goes a long way to making it so that they have reason to be wary of the users that do it. --Karek^maps?! 20:53, 30 July 2009 (BST)

I still disagree with you on all the points I have every previous time this has been discussed. The biggest problems with the current system have always been the idea that it is a "promotion" and that (short of very serious misconduct) it is a job for life. We have Sysops who are allegedly "trusted users" who cannot pint to more than 3 or 4 current wiki goers who voted for them. Sure there are asshats out there who will vote NO based on personal opinion but there are also a hell of a lot more recognizable users who will think before they vote and give the Crats some actual considered opinion to base these things on. Who the hell could you put on an "insulated panel" to judge? Not me, not J3D, not Yonnua, not Wan, not... well not anyone i can think of which makes this system just about the fairest and best I have seen so far. --Honestmistake 21:37, 30 July 2009 (BST)

I'd resign the 'ops position to judge everyone else. : D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:19, 31 July 2009 (BST)

You don't disagree with me you're just contradicting yourself and proving my point exactly. You want to demote a select few users you've decided are unfit but can't garner the support or evidence to show to the community as a whole they're unfit so you've decided that you need to set up a block vote that you can meatpuppet and attempt to manipulate at an appropriate time. I just proposed a system that would work to the effect you're trying to claim you're going for, you just dismissed it and assumed I was against reevaluation because I don't want it how you want it because how you want it is set up specifically to not accurately represent the communities views by obscuring it with stump speachs about who hates who why instead of actual legitimate and calm discussion on someone's fitness and the appropriateness of a decision or many decisions made by them. You don't want real reform or a legitimately workable system, you're dismissing that discussion out of hand, what you're doing will make things worse by making it that much more centric on clique warfare.-Karek^maps?! 01:13, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Too....many...words...--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:21, 31 July 2009 (BST)

He's saying he disagrees with me because the system he wants is one he can abuse to get rid of people he doesn't like instead of one to actually make the system better through allowing real assessment. I'm saying anyone that supports this system as it's being proposed is short sighted and petty or doesn't realize they're just making things worse by throwing crap at a septic tank to try and get it to clean itself. --Karek^maps?! 01:34, 31 July 2009 (BST)

At least it's better than wan's. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Actually I would vouch for pretty much everyone on the current team to continue. I don't trust Nubis's judgement in some areas which would give me pause but would still probably give the benefit of the doubt. Cyberbob can do an excellent job but probably isn't suited to the role... I am hoping he proves me wrong on that. Of course a lot of the user base will "vote" with their bias but thats why this is not a vote. --Honestmistake 13:16, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Gosh Honest, you're just too kind. --Cyberbob 13:27, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Not really, I think its true. --Honestmistake 14:54, 31 July 2009 (BST)

And I was being sarcas-oh nevermind. Cyberbob  Talk  15:17, 31 July 2009 (BST)

You, sarcastic... NEVER! --Honestmistake 15:55, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Hehehehe...guess sarcasm is unfit to be tarnishing a sysops keyboard......fare thee well sweet sarcasm............ Cyberbob  Talk  16:29, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Karek you do realise that the point of making the system such that the final outcome of a re-evaluation is up to bureaucrats and not the community is to avoid literally every problem you've just brought up, right? Are you sure you don't have the wrong policy's talk page? --Cyberbob 13:26, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Seconded. He just transferred all the problems we had with Wan's policy and unnecessarily materialised them here, with an even more unreachable and contradictory alternative. --ϑϑℜ 14:06, 31 July 2009 (BST)

That just shows neither one of you really get the point. 'crats aren't avoiding the problem, or have you guys forgotten how the current promotions system works in practice or the days of the AHLG/Cheesman bureaucracy? Grim s? All giving it to the 'crats does is give them ridiculously disproportionate control of the sysop roster making them essentially the ultimate clique makers and making it so that disagreeing with them in any real way on administrative manners isn't just sometimes uncomfortable but also potentially nonconducive to continuing on in the position. It's just moving the responsibility of it onto the 'crats shoulders and faith into them that they'll never ever ever try and use the position to strong arm and manipulate the running of the wiki instead of actually developing a working system that reaches for the intended goal. It's about neutrality and checks and balances which are simply lacking in a system like this. You can't structure this on the current promotion system for it to work correctly. --Karek^maps?! 23:03, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Erm, Hello? Crats work against the community= Crats get evaluated within the months after and will get demoted, if community support for it is strong enough. The system works. Not every sysop has the motive of 'clique creating' to the extent where it actively disobeys the communities wishes. Perhaps instead of flash-joining IRC channels to force your last word and exiting before a reply can be said, you should actually read the month of conversations leading up to this policy discussion. --ϑϑℜ 01:59, 1 August 2009 (BST)

There was no relevant response to why you guys are continuing the splitting of the IRC channels. When you can think of one feel free to pm me so I can tell you how it's irrelevant compared to the needless confusion that pettiness causes so you aren't trying to use a completely unrelated thing to try and change the subject of actually relevant discussion. I know it's easier than assessing the points being discussed but it's certainly not contributory to anything. --Karek^maps?! 04:34, 1 August 2009 (BST)

Says he who used the splitting of the channels to ghost-attack #urbandeadwiki with your opinions and arguments about this anyway. You started it all, and I stand by my statement. Don't leave the obligation with anyone to contact you via IRC because we have no reason to even try and contact someone as headstrong and misinformed as you to change your vote. Again, read the lead up to this policy and read the already-made text-walls which prove your fucked up and, quite frankly, old concerns void. As for the IRC channels, that's a different story and one best revisited in a place that you can stay in for more than 30 seconds. --ϑϑℜ 14:54, 2 August 2009 (BST)

I've got bad news DDR, it ain't about you. Get over yourself. --Karek^maps?! 15:35, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Karek like I said on Akule's talk page, you obviously don't know SA and Link. It'd be cool if you did before you go off making all these wild accusations of HOLY SHIT UBER CONTROL FREAKZ DONT CROSS DEM EVAR. Cyberbob  Talk  03:59, 1 August 2009 (BST)

That really doesn't make my comments' wild accusations. You know as well as I do that there have been many 'crats in the past that would have used this system in this exact manner. I know SA and Link quite well, I don't assume that they'd do this but, you see, that's irrelevant, the potential for it is there and even then this doesn't reach the desired effect. Just because they get voted in doesn't make them at all tied to the community consensus, it just means they were able to motivate enough people to vote for them, especially considering that 'crat votes are almost always meatpuppeted to a ridiculous degree on barhah, beerhah, brainstalk, resenz, redrum, and SA which should, alone, prove the point that you're not really thinking this through. --Karek^maps?! 04:34, 1 August 2009 (BST)

but d00d meatpuppetry is just like teh block voting in a real life political system! Cyberbob  Talk  04:37, 1 August 2009 (BST)

i no rite?--Karek^maps?! 05:00, 1 August 2009 (BST)

Vecurek's known me for a long time nows--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 05:18, 1 August 2009 (BST)

Effectively, there was significant discussion on Wan's policy where people expressed the desire to have re-evaluations, but didn't like the way that policy was doing it. I'm just taking a system we know (A/PM), and modifying it to address that need. I think we could create an open discussion to talk about your idea and see what the community thinks of it. If people are open to the idea, I wouldn't mind working with you on a policy to implement it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:16, 31 July 2009 (BST)

As Bureaucrat and current High Overlord of the wiki, I demand that you start this open discussion.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:37, 31 July 2009 (BST)

And then link to it here so I don't have to find it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:55, 1 August 2009 (BST)

Lazy bastard. I like this policy though.-- Adward  14:56, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah, as nice as Karek's ideal image of a wiki for an online text-based game sounds I think this is far more achievable. Cyberbob  Talk  14:59, 2 August 2009 (BST)

I know. Isn't life grand? :) -- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 16:37, 2 August 2009 (BST)

So...

Does anyone have anything else for the policy, or are we ready to go? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:56, 3 August 2009 (BST)

A/RE, 8 months, doesn't sound so bad. I'm up for giving it a shot. --ϑϑℜ 06:06, 4 August 2009 (BST)

He means A/RSE.-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 08:02, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I prefer 9 months but oterwise A/RSE seems fine. --Honestmistake 08:19, 4 August 2009 (BST)

It was funny when I didn't get it, it was funny when others played on it. You've killed it enough since then, and I'd like to see this policy get through to voting quickly and efficiently. Thanks. --ϑϑℜ 10:32, 4 August 2009 (BST)

As Honest, I prefer 9 months, although that won't change my vote. And for the sake of flogging a dead horse, A/RSE :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:24, 4 August 2009 (BST)

8 or 9 months, I'm easy, but in the name of everything funny - ever - do not. Make it A/RSE. Cyberbob  Talk  12:29, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I prefer Admin/Sysop Scrutiny anyway, but both would get old(er) pretty damn quick if they were adopted so whatever --Honestmistake 13:00, 4 August 2009 (BST)

So you are actually serious about these names? My god. --ϑϑℜ 13:01, 4 August 2009 (BST)

He admitted they'd get old, which I guess is something. I don't think he's being serious but Honest - seriously man sometimes you just need to let go of a joke. Cyberbob  Talk  15:09, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I'm still pushing for A/RE. or A/SR? Sysop reevaluations? --ϑϑℜ 15:33, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I like A/RE. Cyberbob  Talk  16:22, 4 August 2009 (BST)

A/RP. My final offer, take it or leave it!-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 17:18, 4 August 2009 (BST)

A/RP is ok I suppose but apart from the unfortunate acronym I do genuinely like the name Sysop Scrutiny... I think its catchy :) --Honestmistake 17:49, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I'd like A/RE or A/SR, but what I'd like more is for the policy to actually move to voting and stop this pointless charade.-- Adward  21:20, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Done. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:09, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Voting Discussion

This policy is now ready to be voted on. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:09, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Re: Honestmistake

"Bureaucrats go through regular process of re-elections, so each time they are elected, the community is renewing their faith in the sysop, and is not subject to re-evaluation through this policy". The examples under the Bureaucrats section explain further the process for Bureaucrats, so I don't know where you are getting the idea that boxy would have had to face re-evaluation the moment when he lost Bureaucrat. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:23, 5 August 2009 (BST)

"When this happens, the bureaucrat's eight months start from when they were promoted to bureaucrat." I know its probably a typo but it should say from when they where last promoted... Boxy was Crat for what 18 months or more? Technically by this wording he would have been waay overdue as soon as he was no longer Crat. I admit its petty and stupid but it is what it says and someone will try to force an issue of it should it happen --Honestmistake 00:59, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Aren't they technically re-promoted each time they go through an 'crat evaluation? Sort of like a reaffirmation? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:05, 5 August 2009 (BST)

No because that's not what user's are doing but, it's still a good idea to treat it that way considering we only have two crats and that would be an awkward situation. --Karek^maps?! 02:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Success?

voting time over? Hand out party hats?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:12, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Indeed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:33, 19 August 2009 (BST)