UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Re-Evaluating Re-Evaluations and Other Sysopness
A/RE
I'm a fan of "no more automatic A/REs" #2 ("Only do A/RE when community calls for it.") in principle, but it's a little undefined. Who's allowed to trigger an A/RE? Other sysops? Crats only? Any community member?
I've also added another option there (now #3 "Only do A/RE when the sysop submits themself for it.") because I've seen that proposed before, and would also be in support of that as an option. I'm not a fan of #1 (maybe if misconduct is found, rather than the case appearing?) and #4 seems pretty redundant if they'll be demoted for it soon anyway (plus sops should be able to comment on their own A/REs). Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 00:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I lean more towards a combination of a few of the stated ideas, namely, I think that an A/RE for a particular sysop should happen at anyone's request so long as ANY of the following is true:
- It's been more than X months since the sysop's last A/RE
- The sysop falls under the Truly Inactive Sysop policy
- The sysop has been found guilty of misconduct
- The sysop is the user requesting it
Basically, if no one sees a point in one, we won't have one, but whenever something happens (or doesn't happen) that would warrant a discussion regarding that sysop, we give people the ability to initiate one then. And yes, it may result in snap A/RE proceedings in response to things that sysops do that are unpopular, but, frankly, I'm okay with giving the wiki community a greater ability to influence our tenures as sysops. Plus, the final say still falls on the 'crats, so we have a moderating influence in place to ensure things don't get too out of hand. —Aichon— 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
A/BP
Regarding A/BP, I think changes to it are less urgent than to A/RE, but in general I'm in favor of the standard twice-yearly elections proposed by SZ on the A/RE discussion. I'd vote no to anything creating more than two bureaucrats at once unless someone manages to convince me. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm against the "every sysop is a 'crat" idea, but I'm okay with the idea of making more 'crats, for the simple reason that it ensures we have a 'crat around when we need one. That may be less pressing if we're reducing the frequency of A/RE proceedings, however, but I still see it as being a benefit worth having. That said, I'm okay with keeping just two as well. I won't really fight either way on this one, so long as it's not the "every sysop" idea, since that one is way too dangerous. —Aichon— 00:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)