UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations

Shortcut:
A/RE

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

Karek

• Karek (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)

Since it is already late in the British day, I'm opening Karek's RE, which is due today. -- Spiderzed█ 18:17, 18 September 2012 (BST)

• Abstain - He's technically capable, but not mentally.

  I apprieciate that he's (very) active, does the grunt work consistently, while displaying a certain knowledge and expertise of both coding as well as wikilaw. On the other hand, he often can't handle being disagreed with, loves to throw accussations of bias/vendattas and doesn't know when to stop arguing when it accomplishes nothing more then inane walls of text. Although he's been behaving nicely lately, I'm hesistant whether this is an actual change in behaviour or more the result of lack of feasible drama.

  I would be willing to vouch like I did last time, because in the end, I find him capable enough and he brings something different to the table than other ops. However, I can't help but notice that I'm on some sort of shit list of his, and that he prefers to ignore me as much as possible and, in all honesty, I cannot fully support a sysops when said sysops does not support me as a member of this community. Therefore I abstain -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:23, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  No more so than J3D, I like J3D he's just a good example to be bandied about. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:18, 19 September 2012 (BST)

• Vouch. Same reasons as last time. Personality clashes aside, he's a good op. ~ _{19:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)}
• Question - Is Thad's abstain the result of "bias/vendettas"? --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 20:02, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  Hold on there, I never accussed him of being biased against me. I trust him to be impartial, even against me, it just seems to me that he would prefer to see me leave the wiki rather sooner than later. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:18, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  Question - Karek, did you get that my first question was a joke?--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:01, 19 September 2012 (BST)

• Question. Why is it important to retain dinosaurs on the sysop team? --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:12, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  I am a dinosaur (actually, a wiki dragon) and i take offense in that question --hagnat 20:16, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  Shut it haggy. Before I get mainly Cretaceous on your ass. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:23, 18 September 2012 (BST)

  Probably something to do with being willing to argue wiki untouchables because I, or they, were there when those touchables were gently caressed out of a pile of rage and bile. As were most things in the olden days of yore. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:20, 19 September 2012 (BST)

• Vouch good sysop, will trade with him again. A+++++++ --hagnat 20:15, 18 September 2012 (BST)
• Question - What has been your single biggest contribution to the wiki in the past eight months since your last evaluation? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:16, 18 September 2012 (BST)
• Vouch - He knows what he's doing. I trust he'll be able to keep doing what he's doing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:50, 18 September 2012 (BST)
• Vouch major asshole. but he knows what he is doing.--User:Sexualharrison23:07, 18 September 2012
• Against - Personal issues aside, I find his way of dealing with issues on this wiki deplorable, and often seems more interested than arguing a point than actually getting the right thing done, often lying about past events and precedents to convince others that he's right, actions that he's readily condemned in the past when used by other people in the community. This includes threatening users with A/VB cases he never intends on creating, claiming he has a mountain of evidence he just "can't get it", and preposterous denial of three years worth of precedent because he was AWOL for that precedent and "didn't like it". In the latter link he also threatens me with an A/M case with an edit summary but prematurely concludes that it would "fail because Yon would back him up", when there were around 10 other sysops at the time, right. Similar thing happened here, where Karek again complains that spelling Humour the british way on a british based site is wrong, claiming that it's been decided "like five times already" that he's right, even though looking back it seems that most evidence actually proves it's been the exact opposite the whole time. Without doubt Karek has been getting better of late and doesn't pull this shit as often, and I treat him like shit over all of these personality traits and he takes it pretty well. He also has little problem admitting when he's been called out, but people shouldn't have to call a bluff for him to admit he was bullshitting in an argument that has administrative consequences and when things get more intense I wouldn't hold my breath that he'll begin approaching it in an impersonal fashion.
  These are situational links but they really exemplify Karek's attitude towards issues on this wiki and I think the desire to lie to peers to strengthen one's argument is one of the least desirable traits a member of staff should have. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:58, 19 September 2012 (BST)

  Sure, I'll bite the bait.
  
  This is referring to his behavior against other users driving them to bring him there as a form of harassment in response to his behavior, not as a threat, apparently I wasn't clear enough about that, I could care less about A/VBing him and I actively avoid using that page if I can. There is only one page I report people to and that's A/M in actual abuse cases.
  
  I sometimes play the devils advocate. Your bid link is an example of that. Would you expect a user to fail a bid on the last day with only a single serious contentful against? Neither would I. However this review bids are a method to also bring up issues that need addressing. I don't take against comments personally, I don't expect another historically abrasive sysop should either. I also tend to type in the tone of the subject, abrasive users occasionally get abrasive responses. The relevance of your bid to my bid here, to me, makes no sense. Especially since that was a case of both couldn't easily access and didn't care enough because it was targeted as feedback for you and people who were aware of what I was referring to.
  
  The same applies to this. Yes, I was a douche, in response to your overreaction and yes, it was the case of another edit summary being misinterpreted. Which is actually funny because you can see the reasonable response you edited over with vitriol from a gut reaction to an edit summary about a good misconduct case. A good case about any rule or set of rules actually develops the limits and understanding of a that particular rules usage, it does not consist of people defending a person on principal and the people actually deserving of being offended at that comment were Yonnua and Thad, not you. On top of that, the three year old precedent you're siting was created by me so that raises the question of why I in particular wouldn't have mentioned the case at the core of the rule? I've never once lied about precedent and in cases where I'm indefinite or running off memory and not physical source articles I'm staring at when making the statement(believe it or not I actually research these things in contentious cases of actual issue) I generally mention as much.
  
  And finally Humour, is this seriously still an issue? I made one god damn passing comment in reference to an issue that was settled before it was resettled after I left(your 2009 and 2010 links in that link), it wasn't vehement it was a short little note on the history of the debate over the article while I was passing through. Let. It. Go. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:45, 19 September 2012 (BST)

• Against. Seconding DDR's points for the most part; but I also have to admit I find Karek's punitive attitude to be something I'm uncomfortable with. Obviously I'm not for outright anarchy (well...) but a fan outlet for a browser game is something that should encourage an attitude of fun, competition and jest, and Karek's draconian approach to punishment is something which, while perfectly healthy as advice from the sidelines, is not something I enjoy seeing in a sysop. 02:09, 19 September 2012 (BST)
• Against As DDR & Mis.--Alice Gravesend 03:10, 19 September 2012 (BST)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

• Rosslessness - archived as successful -- boxy 11:26, 8 September 2012 (BST)

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)