UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|[[A/RE]]}}
{{Shortcut|[[A/RE]]}}
{{Moderationnav}}
{{Administrationnav}}
{{Re-evaluations Intro}}
{{Re-evaluations Intro}}
==Re-Evaluations Being Discussed==
<!--
''There are currently no open Re-Evaluations.''
-->


==Re-Evaluations still open for discussion==
==Recent Re-Evaluations==


===[[User:The General]]===
The 2020 Re-Evaluations have begun. They will go for 2 weeks and end on 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
An old reminder on my phone just woke me up to tell me that it's time already for the second batch of A/RE bids, and General is first. I'll give him a heads up on his talk page. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)


*'''Against''' - Nothing personal to General but nothing he could say would make me support him as an op, when I was an op I scowled as he passed his first A/RE bid by doing two weeks of work before said bid (the only work I've really seen him do in 12 months prior) and, well, it's the ''only'' work I've seen him do since. He was given the benefit of the doubt by the community though, but I feel he hasn't satisfied any requirements to say he would make good on his opportunity to make good as a sysop. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Please provide your opinions of the sysops undergoing evaluation below. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Against''' lolwut WHO? {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 05:19, 2 May 2010 (BST)
:The re-evaluation comment period has now elapsed. Please hold while our beloved Crats decide our fates. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Against''' Same as above really,... I haven't really seen him do anything. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 05:21, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - I saw him around a few months ago. I was surprised when I saw him. I wasn't surprised when I saw him making clerical errors that had to be corrected by other sysops. He's not around, and "Sysop" is not meant to be a status symbol, which is all he seems to be using it for. He's a nice enough guy, but a sysop he is not. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''against''' - as per mis. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 06:53, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Inactivity is bad, k.--{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 11:24, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Pow, pow, pow.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 11:31, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - He managed to sneak through the first A/RE bid, but there's no way he should get through this one.  We need active sysops.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 11:47, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - A no-brainer.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 12:44, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' as above. plus it's been so long since i've had to deal with him i forgot what a fucking asshole he is to begin with. i would vouch for bob  before vouching for this assclown ever again. now to return to doing nothing... unless another vote shows up in the news.----[[User:Sexualharrison|sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] ¯\([[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]])/¯ 14:06, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''', due to the obvious inactivity. [[User:G F J|G F J]] 14:26, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - what the fuck ddr puts wiki shit on his phone? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:23, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - The General '''was''' an excellent wiki contributor and sysop. However, he is not nearly active enough to be considered for the position any more.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:45, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*:no sorry he was always a literal 13 year old mouth breather {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 17:35, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*::Hmm...I seem to recall hearing you say [[UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/The_General|something else]] not too long ago. "''Vouch...I don't think the sysop team could do without him.''" :P {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:22, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*:::bitch got owned --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*:::if he'd been demoted then there would've been like 2 or 3 sysops left (including crats). BITCH GOT OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:50, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*::::u mad? (ps. that pretty much explains nothing nice excuse) --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 04:24, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*:::::actually it does as bad decisions on misconduct cases and vb ones where a sysop can't rule due to involvement is better than physically not being able to make any decision at all due to low numbers :) {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:27, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*::::::So you COULD imagine what the sysop team would be like without him then (we had that anyway and he WAS here, there were 9 ops around at the time) :) --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 04:33, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*:::::::so then imagine how much worse it would have been with 8! wow that would have been pretty bad {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:55, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*::::::::Stop making things up to look less wrong, it's quite obvious you accidentally made a u-turn, like it's that much of a big deal.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 16:58, 6 May 2010 (BST) 
*'''Against''' - inactivity bandwagon. --[[User:Armpit Odor|<span style="color:red"><sup>A</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>R</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>D</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>M</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>P</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>R</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>I</sup><span style="color:green"><sub> ! </sub><span style="color:red"><sup>T</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>]] 20:24, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - I think I've heard of him somewhere. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 21:21, 2 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - As above. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 12:15, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - He's fallen far below the activity threshold required of sysops. I don't want sysops to be constantly stalking the RC, but I do expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of current wiki policy and the community. [[UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/The_General|Extra good sysops harm nobody]], but sysops with good intentions but poor knowledge of the current wiki can be quite harmful. That said, General always did a good job when he was here. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 14:21, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' -- To be honest, I've never once run into The General in the last 3.5 years. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 19:51, 3 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - It's time, ol' buddy... there is nothing more in here for us old dinosaus. Just let the ties be cut and join me in the limbo --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 04:40, 4 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Due to inactivity -- {{User:Quentin Julius/Sig2}} 02:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - We need active sysops, k? --{{User:Jack_Kolt/Sig}} 03:39, 6 May 2010 (BST)
*'''Against''' - '''''WAY''''' past time this turd was flushed.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>07:01 6 May 2010(UTC)</tt>
*'''Against''' - As above. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:04, 8 May 2010 (BST)


It's pretty obvious which way this is going to go and, to be honest, it is time. I've [[UDWiki:Administration/Demotions#The_General|requested demotion]] anyway so this can be wrapped up a few hours early if it is wished. I've always said that additional sysops is a good thing and it shouldn't matter how active they are, but I took this rather a step too far. I may come back at a later date but, for now at least, I'm joining Hagnat as the last if the old dinosaurs to go.--{{User:The General/sig}} 21:56, 8 May 2010 (BST)
===Bob Moncrief===
{{bid|Bob Moncrief|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Still foolish enough to carry workload in this dying place. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed==
===Rosslessness===
''There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.''
{{bid|Rosslessness|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Ceux qui n’ont pas connu l’ancien régime ne pourront jamais savoir ce qu’était la douceur de vivre. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


==Recent Re-evaluations==
===Stelar===
{{bid|Stelar|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Shows up on time and sober, which is more than can be said about most sys-ops. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


===Result===


Unsurprisingly, the sysops under evaluation have been '''retained.''' Thanks to our two ex-sysops for pitching in to second the rubber-stamping. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)




==Archived Evaluations==
See [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/2019-08-06 Re-Evaluations|2019 Re-Evaluations]]
*[[:Category:Re-Evaluations Candidacies|Complete list of Re-Evaluations Requests]]
*[[:Category:Successful Re-Evaluations Candidacies|Successful Re-Evaluations Candidacies]]
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Re-Evaluations Candidacies|Unsuccessful Re-Evaluations Candidacies]]


==Archived Re-Evaluations==
''For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:''
*[[:Category:{{CURRENTYEAR}}_Re-Evaluation_Archives|This year's re-evaluations]]
*[[:Category:{{LASTYEAR}}_Re-Evaluation_Archives|Last year's re-evaluations]]
*[[A/SA|Sysop Archives]] for older re-evaluations and related sysop activities
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Check|Re-Evaluations Scheduling}}
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Check|Re-Evaluations Scheduling}}

Latest revision as of 14:48, 25 July 2020

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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 Being Discussed

Recent Re-Evaluations

The 2020 Re-Evaluations have begun. They will go for 2 weeks and end on 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Please provide your opinions of the sysops undergoing evaluation below. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The re-evaluation comment period has now elapsed. Please hold while our beloved Crats decide our fates. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bob Moncrief

Rosslessness

Stelar

Result

Unsurprisingly, the sysops under evaluation have been retained. Thanks to our two ex-sysops for pitching in to second the rubber-stamping. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


See 2019 Re-Evaluations

Archived Re-Evaluations

For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:

Re-Evaluations Scheduling

User Position Last Contribution Seat Available
A Helpful Little Gnome (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2021-10-29 2021-12-01
DanceDanceRevolution (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2021-10-28 2021-12-01
Rosslessness (Contribs) Sysop 2021-10-14 N/A
Stelar (Contribs) Sysop 2021-10-29 N/A

Total Sysops: 4 (excluding Kevan, LeakyBocks and Urbandead)

Last updated at: 03:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)