|
|
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
| |
|
| ==Recent Re-evaluations== | | ==Recent Re-evaluations== |
| ===[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]===
| |
| Looks like it's my time in the sun. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 09:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| *I have a question, how do ''you'' feel you've done as a sysop over the past 8 months? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:The first few months of that period were pretty dumb and dramariffic but the last few have been pretty good I think. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *::Which is pretty ironic considering the first is true and the latter is because you haven't been that active the last few weeks. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:::Weeks != months. I have by and large stayed out of trouble since September or October, and I have always been a hard worker in all my time as a sysop. I only dropped off in activity at the start of the new year when a certain few IRL things came into play that reduced the amount of time I have to spend on the internet. Those are nearly over though; shouldn't be more than a week or so. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| * '''Vouch''' - You've done good --{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 10:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - I'm going to make a decision in the next few hours/days, but for now I'll withhold my voice. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' -{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 11:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Bobbo's been grand. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - In Bob we trust. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - I've known CB here and in NW for about four years or so, and while he can be a bit of a troll sometimes, he is generally honest and stands by his convictions. When you consider his knowledge of the wiki and that he is willing to do a lot of the bitch sysop work around here, I really don't see why he should lose his buttons. -- [[User:MHSstaff|MHSstaff]] 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' I didn't vouch Bob as sysop and would still be wary about doing so if this were a fresh bid. That said, he has done a decent job and mostly avoided trolling while on duty and it would be churlish of me to say no based only on our personal disagreements.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC).
| |
| *'''Against''' - The sole reason why the wiki sucks. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Against''' - Whore'd out his beliefs for power, all around faggot--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Bob has shown a rare ability to actually listen to criticism and self-correct. It's a quality I admire and a good example for all wiki users. He does a lot of good work and he's turned me from a staunch opponent into a believer. Moar koolaid please.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 01:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... HAHA... haha... ha... --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - As long as CB has confidence that his RL will allow him to resume sysop duties with regularity for the majority of his next term, he can keep his buttons. Also because Sonny and WOOT are against the idea. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:<small>See the [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Re-Evaluations#Cyberbob|talk page]]</small>
| |
| *'''Vouch''' Massive anal bastard. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''AGAINST''' Because i can... and hes an asshole--{{User:Imthatguy/sig}} 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:Sonny, Rakuen and now you? Clearly I'm doing something right. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''MEGA AGAINST''' YOU LEAVE MY BOOBS ALONE YOU CAD!----[[User:Sexualharrison|sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] ¯\([[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]])/¯ 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:<small>See the [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Re-Evaluations#Cyberbob|talk page]]</small>
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - I have to say that I too am not the largest fan of his somewhat abrasive personality, but when it comes to getting the job done, he gets it done. It's really that simple. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' I can fap to this. --[[User:Irishmen|Irishmen]] 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:what's with all these blasts from the past, g*sh {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' I enjoy pissing Sonny off. --[[User:Officer Maddox|Officer Maddox]] 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *:<small>See the [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Re-Evaluations#Cyberbob|talk page]]</small>
| |
| *'''Abstain''' < but purely because I haven't been around here much lately. That said, when I ''was'' around, Bob was a drama-prone sysop, but still one of the better ones. So, a ''Vouch'', I guess. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Gets stuff done, and now with 90% less drama. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Yep. --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Abstain''' - As Link.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Cyberbob has fulfilled the communities requirement for a successful re-evaluation, so it's been decided that he will keep his Sysop status. '''Successful'''. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Template:Moderationnav
Once a year, all sitting sysops will come up for re-evaluation by the community. The idea of this re-evaluation is to ensure that each sysop still has the trust of the community, which is vital for a sysop to have. This will give the community a chance to voice their opinions about how the sysops have been doing, and re-affirm or decline their trusted user status.
The idea of a sysop being a trusted user is a part of the guidelines for the general conduct of a sysop. The guidelines for the re-evaluation is the same as for being promoted to a sysop (which is reposted below), but with a few minor changes in wording.
Guidelines for System Operator Re-Evaluations
Once a year, on Urban Dead's birthday (July 3rd), all sysops will be subject to a community discussion. Sysops may also put themselves up for re-evaluation at any time (see below). All users are asked to comment on each candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for continuing to be a System Operator. This is not a vote. It is instead merely a request for comments from the wiki community. This will continue for two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.
Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision for each candidate based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their re-evaluation, and will be retained in their position should it appear that the community is willing to continue to accept them as a System Operator. In the event that the decision is negative, then the sysop will be demoted back to regular user status, where after a month's time, the user can re-submit themself for promotion.
Before users voice their opinions on the candidate who wishes to continue their System Operator status, the following guidelines should be reviewed by the user:
General User Guidelines for System Operator Re-Evaluations
Before voicing their opinion on a candidate's re-evaluation bid, a user should consider some of the following questions:
- Has the candidate spent significant time within the community as a sysop?
- We define this as the candidate having made at least one edit in the past 3 months. It is recommended that a user look over the the sysop activity check and last 500 edits to determine the level of activity of the candidate.
- Note: The Truly Inactive Sysops policy dictates that a sysop who hasn't made an edit within four months is automatically demoted. Therefore, for a sysop to be re-evaluated, they need to have made an edit before that time-frame is up.
- Has the candidate maintained significant activity within the community?
- We define this as at least 50 edits under the candidate's name since their last re-evaluation. It is recommended that a user look over the candidate's last 50 edits in order to get a feel for the activity of a candidate.
- Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history used to be periodically purged on this wiki.
- Has the candidate expressed interest in maintaining the community?
- We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and continuing taking a leadership role on the wiki.
- Has the candidate expressed a desire to continue to be a System Operator?
- We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire to continue to maintain the position.
- 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.
If a candidate is highly exemplary in one guideline, a certain level of flexibility should be extended to the other guidelines. Other guidelines for qualifications may be used, these are just a few suggested things to consider before a user voices their opinion.
Re-Evaluations still open for discussion
There are currently no Re-Evaluations up for discussion.
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
Recent Re-evaluations
Archived Evaluations
Total Sysops: 4 (excluding Kevan, LeakyBocks and Urbandead)
Last updated at: 03:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
