UDWiki talk:Administration/Re-Evaluations

Administration/Re-Evaluations

I did just have one in February. I feel the need to point that out.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:14, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Sorry. Again, it was late at night and going through the user logs over and over again is difficult stuff. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:32, 23 August 2009 (BST)

And you could have just changed it yourself, you know. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:54, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Archiving REv's

i'd like to suggest that when we archive a sysop re-evaluation, that we place it under UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/YYYY/MM/Username (where YYYY is the year using four digits, and MM the month's number using two digits, with a leading zero when needed) This way it becomes easier to identify when the re-evaluation took place without having to open the page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:46, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I'm curious how you managed to fuck up the time line on my re-eval. You even put in the date of the last one but then couldn't do the math to realize it wasn't 8 months? I'm not DUE until October. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:49, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I only fixed when you were last promoted. When you are due to be re-evaluated again was not of my concern, specially when you are not due to be re-evaluated in said date, not untill all the others on due are to be re-evaluated. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:43, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Contribs template

Do we already have a contributions link template or something that we can add to a persons evalutation, kinda like what we do on Vandal pages? that way it would be easier to check someone contributions to see how active they are..--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:56, 25 August 2009 (BST)

I've been putting (Talk | Contribs) into A/PM bids lately, I could do the same here? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:20, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Daranz?

Shouldn't Daranz have gone up for Re-evaluation first since it's been about 4 years since he was promoted? =/ -- Cheese 22:41, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, technically he should actually have been up before me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:00, 27 August 2009 (BST)

"Technically"? -- Cheese 23:04, 27 August 2009 (BST)

As in "Per the policy, he should be up first but DDR made a mistake and I didn't see any point in kicking up a fuss about it".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:07, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Alright, I thought by technically there was a reason he was missed out. DDR got most of the promotion times wrong as well. =p I think he started at the top and worked down as opposed to the other way round. -- Cheese 23:09, 27 August 2009 (BST)

lol. rest assured you'll all get your turn ;) --xoxo 05:21, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I ctrl+f'd it all, and in between temporary demotions, evaluations, Grim's demotions and Kevan's subsequent repromotions, things got messy. It was very late too and it had been 24 hours since the policy had passed and no one had done anything about it so I worked to do it even though I was pretty drowsy. I accept that I failed pretty hard though, so sorry to everyone, particularly General. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:42, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Quick question. What's up with Boxy's evaluation date? It's before his promotion date. --DBHT 20:46, 3 September 2009 (BST)

The General

Still waiting for the promised activity.-- SA 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum, what would we have expected? I said it the day he passed the bid; he should have failed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucky bitch first off the bat. Should have gone to someone who deserved to pass...lets pass a policy that these should be every month. xoxo 09:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DDR

Just explaining why I removed my A/RE bid after a few hours.

UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Check states that my next 'evaluation' is yesterday, but by that it meant the A/BP election currently going on. It was originally set to crat's 8 months A/RE bid but was changed by someone on UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Check. The aim was so that if I don't get re-elected I can then change my "Evaluation Due" section back to when my A/RE is due, 2 moths after the election. There is more discussion about it at UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Check, but no one was for changing it back to the logical way. And now this happens. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:24, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Updated with results of Bureaucat election

I've updated it to take into account the results of the bureaucrat election, just wanted to check that the "Next Reevaluation" dates don't change?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:30, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Nah, mine's right. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:52, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Also

I had a promo-bid that was a re-eval before we had the system in place. Should we merge that into the A/RE archives or you guys think we should just leave it?--SA 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have discussed this at one point and decided not to bother changing them... A ZOMBIE ANT 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind to link me to it? It couldn't hurt to categorise it as such, to offer another venue of searching for it. -- Spiderzed█ 14:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go!--SA 05:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Revising the RE system

I think it is pretty clear that the sys-op team has become extremely static. We have had the same roster for over a year now except for the re-addition of Gnome (who has a pending demotion request). Re-evaluations have become more of an artificial make-work routine, then something that has any impact on the sys-op roster. I think it is time for a radical revision that creates less artificial paperwork, yet gives the community tools to deal with rogue sys-ops should the problem ever again crop up.

I have two radical ideas:

1. Skip the entire recurring RE process, and call for REs only a.) when a Misconduct case comes up (regardless of the outcome) or b.) when a sys-op becomes eligible for a Truly Inactive Sys-Op warning.
2. Skip tracking individual RE dates. Instead, have an annual RE at a set date for all sys-ops at once. (Crats should be included, to avoid an unfair advantage for someone slipping into crat position before the annual date and slipping out after. - Actually, it could be a good idea to shove the crat elections as well into that annual mega-RE, so that we can handle all the meta-administration stuff in one go and not have to worry about any of it for the rest of the year, unless someone actively brings up Misconduct, Demotions, Sys-Op Promotions etc.)

Discuss. -- Spiderzed▋ 10:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling a RE immediately after a misconduct decision is not a good idea - too much recent drama (not that that's really an issue around here any more). Putting it before a 'truly inactive' sysop warning is better, but not really ideal (a few sysops - especially on earlier REs used the 'goodwill,' for want of a better word, from the RE to avoid being demoted due to inactivity.)

Having a mega administration week is fine, now that the team is so small. If it got even a little larger, it may become a little unwieldy.

An alternative - don't have automatic re-evaluations. Sysops can be re-evaluated every eight months, but only if a member of the community requests it. In practise, most sysops will request it themselves, I'm guessing.

'History' lesson. Half the reason RE exists is because a certain ex-sysop thought it was a massive conspiracy to demote him (and he wasn't even wrong,) and as a result of some truly stupid policies to give the community a say in the demotion of sysops. I think there's still a rationale for REs to exist, but it's a different one from when they were introduced. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Having a mega administration week is fine, now that the team is so small. If it got even a little larger, it may become a little unwieldy.

Extremely unlikely. Gnome was the last candidate who had good chances to make it onto the roster. The other sys-ops of old are mostly inactive, while new users hardly see enough workload and drama to prove that they may make good additions. (And I say that as a 'crat who would be very, very happy to extend to shallow sys-op pool we have today, if only to make it more sustainable. If we lose 1 or even 2 more ops from the current pool (which could happen every day with as little activity as there is), things will get very awkward. - Crat elections are already a joke, even with the reduced minimum edits I railroaded through A/PD one year ago, so that there is at least some choice for the users rather than only one viable candidate.)

An alternative - don't have automatic re-evaluations. Sysops can be re-evaluated every eight months, but only if a member of the community requests it. In practise, most sysops will request it themselves, I'm guessing.

Making RE something on request rather than something automatic could work too. That way it wouldn't be too bad if RE dates were badly tracked. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge the entire thing with A/P and diss this entire page entirely. I don't see the reason to keep track of this --hagnat 01:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluate them all on an important date in UD history. --Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 18:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of making A/RE a by-request process rather than an automatic one. Make it only happen by request, and only if either 8 months had passed or the sysop had become Truly Inactive. That frees us up from the pointless song and dance that we're doing right now, while keeping the process around for the times when it actually serves a purpose. Plus, it means that while A/RE won't automatically be initiated in response to an A/M case, A/RE will very likely be available after the A/M case if the need for it should arise. Saves us the hassle of an automatic case, while ensuring that the community has even better recourse than they have now. —Aichon— 04:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This sounds the most simple. Unless an even better idea comes up, I will whip up a policy discussion. -- Spiderzed▋ 09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"I call X for re-evaluation" and two people need to second it in Y amount of time. Can't be done if the sysop has succeeded a A/RE in 6 months. That's how I'd propose it. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No re-evaluations for anyone. Op powers for life. See what happens first--everyone has buttons, or game dies. Pints and blowies for Mis. 12:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am all in favor of removing A/RE, and the trully inactive policy. Also, promote all currently active sysops to crats. Its a waste of time to enforce all the rules we created some ~9 years ago, mostly because it expected a more active community than we have today. By current rules, for exemple, i don't see any user being promoted to sysophood --hagnat 12:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with this. Now that the wiki is in 'shutdown mode' we really just need 'ops around to kill the odd spambot and do any odd admin requests. Although I do believe a few old 'regulars' do tend to show up for these discussions (I'm not the only person with email alerts set up, right?) Linkthewindow  Talk  13:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion, as yet another pointless sys-op RE has come up, and as I would like to step down from crat duties as the mists of a certain infamous persistent world grab me and threaten to carry me away.

• Make RE something on request, rather than an automatic process.
• I am not sold on making all ops crats, as it would then take a single bad apple to spoil the entire wiki. I'd rather keep the Roman consul system of two crats required to agree on something, but trim the process down. Maybe a single mega crat election on an important date like November 5th, with the prize going to the 1st and 2nd placed? Or two elections on separate days, if there is another day as iconic as November 5th?

-- Spiderzed▋ 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I (still) completely agree with making A/RE an on-request process instead of an automatic one. As for 'crats, I agree with Spider on this one, since the danger is much higher. It's hard to imagine it going wrong at this point, but we'd be making it too easy if we just auto-cratted all sysops. That said, I am okay with promoting more sysops to 'crat. Maybe after two years of continuous service a sysop gets automatically 'cratted after a quick A/RE, and if we ever drop to 1 'crat due to demotions or inactivity, we go ahead and initiate the current 'crat promotion procedure? Just spitballin' here. —Aichon— 23:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Be careful Aichon. I'm liable to support any reform which forces you back into a Crat seat. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of the wiki, maybe April 1st. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume the election would last 1-2 weeks around the important dates, as usual? Also, it's only fair to then make it early November and early May. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, something like 2 weeks. We will probably oversleep closure day anyway, as we always do these days. - And lacking any better date, April 1st may do for the secondary election day. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no doubt that A/REs don't serve the same purpose as they do now, but there's something about the automatic, timed system that I still like. Having to rely on people to 'call' an evaluation could lend too much to knee-jerks, vendetta evaluations, or even could lower the seriousness of evaluations already more than they are now. Possibly. Who knows? Something about asking the community to call it themselves doesn't feel right to me. To me, just because something's a mindless rubber stamp at the moment, doesn't mean it's terrible enough to remove. I feel automated A/REs will always have a purpose, even in this state. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Automated A/REs have mostly become a chore that often gets missed, so the status quo is already that they are only begrudgingly enforced. I still think that RE on request would combine the best of both worlds. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not too hard to put an alarm in your phone or something. I used to do that years ago. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess my opinion is quite clear already. This wiki isn't as active or as chaotic as it was some years ago. A/RE was needed when there was a lot of people eager for the buttons, and some feedback on their performance was needed. This is no longer the case, mostly because who has them buttons are already known by the rest of this community. --hagnat 18:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also in favor of dumping A/PB, and just promote to crat any psyop with more than a year in its back --hagnat 18:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone over a certain tenure (say a year) as sysop would get auto-promoted to Crat (or really any change which increases the number of Crats above 2) you'd have to start considering how to change Crat decision-making on (say) A/PM decisions. Is it majority (or majority-plus-one) voting? unanimous decisions only? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, 'crats have veto power when it comes to A/PM. That is, if one 'crat says "no", then the promotion doesn't happen. It's only if both/all are okay with it that the promotion takes place. As such, the more 'crats we have, the less likely we are to add more since it's more likely that someone will veto, and the less 'crats we have, the more likely we are to add more since it's less likely that someone will veto. Works out nicely! —Aichon— 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am against extending the crat pool. Four eyes are the sweet spot between speed and a second opinion, and the larger the crat pool gets the higher risk of one single bad apple going rogue. I don't think anyone in the current team would (and I don't think we will grow much larger unless a Redditmas or something happens), but I am better safe than sorry. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think making everyone a crat is- personally- a stupid idea. What do we gain? What issue is fixed? I really don't think it does anything. Can anyone let me know how this relates to the A/RE issue if it does? Because I don't really see a connection. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone's following this and not recent changes, Gnome's set up a policy discussion on this. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

The first annual REs will be up tomorrow. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines readjustment

Some time ago, this guideline criterion was removed from promotion guidelines:

• Is there an indication of trust in the candidate.

We define this as a minimum of three other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name and at least one System Operator), willing to vouch for the candidate's suitability for the role.

Should the same be done for A/RE? Re-evaluations generally get less attention than promotion bids, as an example, my recent evaluation only got 2 responses at all (thankfully both vouches), seemingly from lack of interest more than anything. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be down to replace it with a more general "We define this as a community consensus for retaining the candidate" without referring to specific user numbers, edit counts or system operators — there aren't really enough of any to meet the above criteria anymore. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What?

I can’t vote for Grims? What’s the hell? Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure you can. You just edit the edit summary to Grim s, tricking the recent changes stalkers for a few seconds. Works great. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh my god thank you for reminding me of that game! DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)