UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/ARE

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Simple.

Modify the re-evaluations guidelines to have one every 6 months for a System Operator instead of 8.

I'd much rather it be four, but everyone won't like it because that's too constant. On the other hand, 8 is much too long of a time span for a bad 'op to stay in power once he gets promoted/passes his revaluation bid.

We don't have a clause for interim evaluations or any other policy bound way of getting rid of a bad 'op, so I feel a shortening of the time span is a decent idea.

DISCUSS.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. hurrrr-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2. durrrr 05:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
3. gurrrr —Aichon— 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   burrrr --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

4. )c-c-c-combo breaker! -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
5. For.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   LETTERurrrrrrrr AM I COOL YET Cyberbob  Talk  05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   No, you're not-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fuck I just realised that that is exactly the kind of joke jed makes Cyberbob  Talk  09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   8B -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

6. I approve of this policy. --Thadeous Oakley 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
7. According to SA, I'm a cunt, but I'll still go For.-- Adward  12:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
8. For --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
9. furrrr --Haliman - Talk 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Yes. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
11. --
     
     
     
     
    02:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
12. For. --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. Eight months is fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   You're a cunt.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Don't mind me. I'm just raging against the bandwagon. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Which is why you're a cunt. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2. We haven't even had one 8 month term yet. Unneeded change -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:57 10 January 2010 (BST)
3. I thought the 8 month term was recently voted in? Why not wait till at least the end of a term? I see no drastic reason for change --C Whitty 14:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
4. fuck you SA!----Sexualharrison 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
5. As Box. =/ This is silly since we havent even hit eight months yet. -- Cheese 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   So what you're saying is you'd rather wait until we do have a bad 'op let in? k-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   stop fucking saying "'op" thanks in advance Cyberbob  Talk  06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   If you insist.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well it's more the apostrophe that annoys me than anything else, dunno why :\ Cyberbob  Talk  13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Either way, if you want me to stop doing it, it's not too big of a deal. Sysop sounds better than 'op anyway.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

6. nay, because im a dick Ripf22 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Nay, because the person who brought the policy just wants to vote on getting rid of people more often. How about a policy on voting to get rid of SA every week? I'd be for that. --Funt Solo ^QT 05:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   I would approve of that, just for hilarity's sake. --Thadeous Oakley 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   So who brought you out of retirement?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

8. This is ridiculous. Give the current policy time to work.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
9. I Have risen from my deathlike torpor to oppose this mechanic once again. The whole business of reevaluating sysops is silliness that builds up an image of sysops as moderators who run your shit. Its divisive, bureaucratic, and unnecessary. Rules for the sake of rules and popularity contests for the sake of drama. --Zaruthustra^{Still a Mod in His Mind} 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Realized this is mostly silly and SA just wants an evaluation or something. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Zaru is persuasive. Bad sysops only represent one vote out of however-many and it's not like any of the really bad ones have ever made it very long anyway. Cyberbob  Talk  20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Just you wait til I delete every page on the entire wiki. 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    which is the reason I voted for you... now get work!----Sexualharrison 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

12. 8 months is fine. We only recently voted this policy into place, no need to change it. Also, Zaruthustra, as always, has a point.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
13. As Boxy. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Against - I don't see the switch from 8 to 6 months making that much of a difference. --ZsL 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting Closed - With 12 in favour and 14 against, this policy has failed to pass voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)