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:

1. It's been more than X months since the sysop's last A/RE
2. The sysop falls under the Truly Inactive Sysop policy
3. The sysop has been found guilty of misconduct
4. 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/RE should *NOT* be called after a sysop is found guilty of misconduct, at least not right after it. Its really easy for everybody to just focus on the misconduct case and not on what the psyop has done so far for the wiki.

My take on A/RE is simple, "if it's been more than 6 months since the sysop last A/RE, any user can request a new re-evaluation of the sysop", "can" being a really strong word here, not to be confused with "should"

Also, scrap the 'trully inactive sysop policy'. It serves no purpose for a low traffic wiki. --hagnat 12:46, 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)

There's nothing wrong with two crats, there's something wrong about crats that can't attend the wiki when needed. About times we were allowed to misconduct crats for not doing their job appropriately. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What about having three crats ? Have a single, yearly election among all psyops and pass the stick around. Three crats ensure that a) if there is a tie between two crats, a third one will untie it b) serves as security in case one of the crats becomes inactive --hagnat 12:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)