UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations
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
Krazy Monkey
Boing, cheese's turn. --
02:47, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Vouch Been here for ages, and still an asset to the team. He should try to be a bit more active though.--
Thadeous Oakley 11:02, 13 May 2010 (BST) - Vouch Re-evaluate the cunt.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:14, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Abstain/Weak Against - I'm more or less going to abstain, after weighing a couple of things. Cheese used to be a good op, and tends to keep that up when he's active and consistently giving input on the wiki. However, he hasn't been at his best for almost a year, since his last A/RE he's made about 30 edits a month which nowadays, as a sysop, I think is pretty poor (the average is oft in the hundreds), but at leased Cheese's are of respectable tasks unlike Conndraka. Basically, I don't think Cheese is a bad op, which is probably the only reason this isn't an against, I would love for him to be around more, but the fact that I've already been forced to compare him to Conndraka is really frightening in itself. -- 11:16, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Honestly, if you take anything with you from my input cheese, for the love of all fucking things holy, please stop insta-ruling on A/VB cases that are not only not-open-and-shut, but are blatantly the opposite of what you vote. The first one was a joke which I could only attribute to someone just bandwagoning along with the escalations ZL had been gaining the days before, and the latter case would indicate you were out of touch, but luckily the entire sysop team (bar boxy) didn't know what to do either. I don't mind if you are demoted or kept in this bid, just please, please stop doing that. Even if you think you're 100% right, don't. Good, I'm done. -- 11:16, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Vouch. Several recent actions and initiatives convince me that he is a great addition to the SysOp team. If this re-evaluation was not approved, I believe it would be a not-insignificant loss for the wiki. G F J 11:57, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I just thought I'd let you know that these "recent actions" he's done in the last 2 weeks constitute 20% of his total edits for the last 10 months. He just quadrippled his edit-output than the rate at which he normally does, in the two weeks before this. I don't mind people vouching for Cheese but your reasons mean you're perfectly happy with allowing another general in. That didn't go well, to say the least. -- 12:15, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, you are correct about the inactivity, and this is indeed something that he should improve. Comparing Krazy Monkey's edits to those from The General is too radical, however - there's still a difference in my opinion, and while I'm vouching for Krazy Monkey I did vote against The General. I agree with you that Krazy Monkey's activity is not too great and "improvable", but nevertheless I prefer to have these contributions and SysOp-activities than none at all because I'm not convinced that the issues he raised would have been raised without him as well. But he should certainly keep up the edit rate displayed in the last weeks, and should take the fact that many people here will probably comment on his activity as a warning that if he does not do so, the next re-evaluation could very well be like The General's. G F J 12:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Fair enough. I just think the problem is the trend is the same and I've never seen any op actually prove me otherwise. I'm also trying to demonstrate that cheese did the same thing last time too. -- 13:13, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, you are correct about the inactivity, and this is indeed something that he should improve. Comparing Krazy Monkey's edits to those from The General is too radical, however - there's still a difference in my opinion, and while I'm vouching for Krazy Monkey I did vote against The General. I agree with you that Krazy Monkey's activity is not too great and "improvable", but nevertheless I prefer to have these contributions and SysOp-activities than none at all because I'm not convinced that the issues he raised would have been raised without him as well. But he should certainly keep up the edit rate displayed in the last weeks, and should take the fact that many people here will probably comment on his activity as a warning that if he does not do so, the next re-evaluation could very well be like The General's. G F J 12:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I just thought I'd let you know that these "recent actions" he's done in the last 2 weeks constitute 20% of his total edits for the last 10 months. He just quadrippled his edit-output than the rate at which he normally does, in the two weeks before this. I don't mind people vouching for Cheese but your reasons mean you're perfectly happy with allowing another general in. That didn't go well, to say the least. -- 12:15, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Againt - As has been pointed out, Cheese is prone to jumping the gun on A/VB - which is easily overlooked should he be more active, and thus explainable as a mistake made in amongst a lot of other wiki work, but when your few contributions involve excalating users without due consideration, then leaving others to fix it, I'd find it better for the team if you didn't have that option.
13:06, 13 May 2010 (BST)
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
Recent Re-evaluations
Archived Evaluations
- Complete list of Re-Evaluations Requests
- Successful Re-Evaluations Candidacies
- Unsuccessful Re-Evaluations Candidacies
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)
