UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Community Sysop Demotion

Discuss, ladies and Germs fans. --WanYao 21:34, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Power

The community needs it. I am all for stopping the current system that pretty much grants sysops status for life. It should be possible for the community to force a sysops to get re-evaluated through the A/Promotions system. --Thadeous Oakley 21:58, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Reasonable.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 22:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The way I see it the actual problem is the very idea that it is a promotion in the first place. It is not, it is a sign that other wiki users think you can be trusted not to abuse additional responsibilities that you have volunteered to take on. Rather than a system for "demotion" I think it would be better for all sysops to face automatic reviews on a schedule not too dissimilar to the Crat elections. --Honestmistake 22:27, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Maybe stagger it so that every six months all sysops who have served more than 6 months and aren't bureaucrats go through a reaffirmation of confidence? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The problem there might be that we need to vote yes/no on like 7 different sysops in one row.--Thadeous Oakley 22:53, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The idea of a regular sysop "review" has been shot down too many times before... This is something a little different: it's not an annual report, it's a procedure specifically for recalling/demoting sysops who have lost the trust of the community. Nothing more, nothing less. --WanYao 23:02, 18 July 2009 (BST)

When? If you are talking about mine I withdrew that on my own. It wasn't shot down at all.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 23:38, 18 July 2009 (BST)

i ;iekes giviong peoples power bnut thi s smells funny to me. DUNNO why but i'll be sober dtommowew qnd reply the n . kthzbai -- Cheese 03:00, 19 July 2009 (BST) P

you have a way with words cheesy <3 --xoxo 15:35, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Voting

I hate voting. You can not make voting fair. If you say there are edit requirements before you can vote in a sysop demotion then that's unfair to new users and the requirements would have to be strict enough to matter. If you don't limit it in any way then you can get meat puppets. If you make it required to be justified then you get the risk of LOLZ DO NOT WANT or other shit. Even with the cooling off period (which I think more policies need) you can not make demotion a popular vote. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:10, 18 July 2009 (

I actually tend to agree with you as regards a straight vote. I am not against some pretty harsh voting requirements but at the end of the day I would prefer a method that left the final decision to the serving Crats, they already have final say on sysop promotions so its not really a stretch and should hopefully give unpopular sysops a court of appeal if they feel they are being ousted only because folks don't like the rules. --Honestmistake 00:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)

As I keep saying.... it's patently obvious, nubis, how you loathe and look down on the average wiki user... they're not as smart or capable as YOU, and certainly can't be trusted with ANY power or responsibiliy, not like YOU can be... and they certainly can't be trusted to make the right decision to demote a shyte sysop, nope, NEVER. See, this kids is why unrestricted "self-policing" a bad idea... in the real world, and in wiki-land. This kind of self-serving arrogance needs some kind of checks and balances. --WanYao 03:39, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Oh and thanks for edit conflicting me to say much the same thing boxy.... bloody pest :( --Honestmistake 00:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)

A few voting requirements wouldn't hurt. Total time on the Wiki/minimum edits, something like that. I'm against leaving it up to the Crats.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:34 19 July 2009(BST)

Common sense, if we're trying to pry some of them out of office why would we let them have any say in how this policy is written and implemented --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)

It's up to Wan as to how this policy is written. If you want your own, go make one. I'd love to vote on what you two idiots come up with -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:43 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think what Wan has come up with so far is good --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)

So we're supposed to limit "discussion" to yes/no? Sounds more like voting. This must be an example of that vaunted "maturity" I keep hearing about. --

| T | BALLS! | 00:56 19 July 2009(BST)

No, you're not limited to yes/no. Yup, this is my policy, but I made this page for discussion and development. it's a little like Talk:Suggestions... except, as you can see, less civil... ;P Anyway, "voting requirements" are no more or less necessary here than they are for any other policy or 'crat vote. --WanYao 03:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Ah, thank you. I thought voting requirements might cut down on dealing with sock/meatpuppet issues. At any rate, thanks for drafting this up. I'm all for it. --

| T | BALLS! | 03:38 19 July 2009(BST)

I understand your point... but how should this be any different than 'crat promotions or other policy votes? Those don't have special voting req's do they? I think voting req's needs (yet another!) seperate policy. --WanYao 03:45, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Simple reevaluation

I support reevaluation rather than a poll (which is too easily abused), overviewed by the 'crats. The sysop should be allowed to choose their own timing, as long as it's within a certain timeframe. Current crats would be immune (because they've already been through a poll approving of them). There needs to be significant community disapproval before demotion. Plenty of sysops have already put themselves up for reevaluation successfully, showing that if you're doing the job the way the community wants it done, it's easy enough to get reapproved -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:19 19 July 2009 (BST)

No --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:25, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Brilliant counter! That was so informative and intelligent, I don't think any of us ever need to hear from you again!--SirArgo ^Talk 00:25, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Duelists --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 00:33, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Rebel without a clue -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:32 19 July 2009 (BST)

Combo of Tiny Yapper and Palooka. Just won't die or shut up.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:54, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think you dont see what this policy is about boxy, as for argo.... hes just pissed that i killed him in game a long time ago --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 05:04, 19 July 2009 (BST)

No, boxy. It was exactly to circumvent the deeply flawed concept and practice of "self-policing" that I made this policy draft. I tried to think of some way to bring the 'crats into the equation... but other than completely dispensing with the central idea that the community finally gets some power to demote sysops who've lost their "trusted user" status, I couldn't/can't see how to do it. And I've intentionally made it hard for a sysop to be demoted exactly to prevent abuse of the policy. To get demoted by the community in this way you must have REALLY screwed up and lost our trust... and if you've screwed up that badly, you really shouldn't be a sysop anymore. --WanYao 03:52, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Self policing in this manner doesn't work at the moment, because crats are restricted to only demoting after clear and extremely serious misconduct is approved by the other sysops. Making it a formal reevaluation where the communities views are required to be considered is a whole new concept. Hell, if the community wanted to get rid of a sysop now, they should be able to start a vote to show clear community will and the crats would have to act if the result was clearly that the community had lost trust in a sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:22 19 July 2009 (BST)

And your other proposals are more of the same: trusting to effective self-policing. Plenty of sysops have put themselves up for reevaluation... yes... and good on them. But we shouldn't have to sit back and wait and hope for any old sysop to decide to do this, when and if they feel like it... We should have a bit more say in the who, what, why, how and when. --WanYao 03:57, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, but still, voting is very easily abused, and adding strict voting requirements will just make the re-evaluations seem elitist anyway... If, for example, you made requirements similar to "1 month in community" and "100 edits prior" etc. --ϑϑℜ 04:01, 19 July 2009 (BST)

You don't have to sit back and wait. There would be a maximum time limit as to how long any sysop can go without a reevaluation (or winning a crat election). This simply means that such reevaluations will be based on medium/long term behaviour, instead of single incidents. We don't want a situation where demotion votes are called for single bad decisions, but rather to get rid of a sysop if they are making consistently bad decisions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:17 19 July 2009 (BST)

Am I seriously insane, or haven't we been down that path before? I seem to recall several very heated discussions about periodic reviews of sysop-ship... More than just one proposed by Nubis. And for reasons I honestly don't recall every one of them got shot down or withdrawn. I'm all for bringing that idea back... But... still... it leaves the self-policing thing ultimately intact. I want the community to have some way to bypass the closed self-policing circle, if necessary. --WanYao 05:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Votes are far too easily abused (which is why A/PM is a discussion instead of a straight vote.) That's a problem with internet voting itself, not with the policy. I wouldn't be against this if the crats where edited in (yes, I know of the potential conflict of interest here.) Making it just like another A/PM bid would shield against meatpuppets, etc (and add "Bureaucrats must demote a sysop who shows a major lack of support from the community" to prevent the repromontion of very unpopular sysops.)

Also, sysops shouldn't face demotion over single bad decisions (as Boxy said above.) This policy makes this somewhat likely (especially for unpopular sysops,) and just adds to the drama around any misconduct case. I would be more likely to support this if a line similar to "a sysop must have had X number of misconduct cases that closed misconduct to be considered eligible for demotion" A sysop shouldn't be demoted just because they are unpopular, they should be demoted for constant misuse/mistakes using admin powers. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:41, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Problem is that you're proposing yet another method of self-policing. And my point is that self-policing just isn't good enough. In the real world, or on the wiki. This policy has been very specifically designed to avoid kneejerk demotions. First of all, a significant portion (75%) of voting For/Against users must call for demotion. Secondly, there is a 1 week cooling off period before the actual voting actually starts. Given these safeguards it is incredibly implausible that a sysop will be demoted for screwing up once. However, the policy does give the community the power to demote sysops who've lost the trust and confidence of the community. I'm all for making changes the policy... but the changes you're proposing completely castrate the intent and method of the policy -- namely, answer the question "Who watches the watchmen?" --WanYao 17:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

"Peace, Bread, Land. All power to the Soviets". Even if 100% Of users Agree on an idea it does not make the idea an inherently good one. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 12:13, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Rah rah Rasputin! --WanYao 17:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)