Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 21: Line 21:
*Misanthropy is a good sysop that does his job well. As DDR said, he's had some strange moments, but I've never seen anything that makes me think that he's fundamentally unsuited to the job. He's one of the most active sysops on the wiki at the moment, and he's very good at what he does. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:00, 3 August 2010 (BST)
*Misanthropy is a good sysop that does his job well. As DDR said, he's had some strange moments, but I've never seen anything that makes me think that he's fundamentally unsuited to the job. He's one of the most active sysops on the wiki at the moment, and he's very good at what he does. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:00, 3 August 2010 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' even though I do hate your sig! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:46, 3 August 2010 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' even though I do hate your sig! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:46, 3 August 2010 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' I'm going to kill myself for doing this, But yes, misantropy is responsible for half the stuff that goes on on this wiki. So she needs to stay sysop.--{{User:Jerrel Yokotory/signature}}. 15:53, 3 August 2010 (BST)


==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed==
==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed==

Revision as of 14:53, 3 August 2010

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

User:Misanthropy

Shit's going down 36 minutes early. I'll notify myself in due course. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 23:24, 2 August 2010 (BST)

  • Vouch - Misanthropy is a strong and committed member of the sysop team. He often presents dissenting opinions, and sticks to his guns. He has strong leadership skills, and aquaints himself with all areas of the administrative section, as well as the rest of the wiki.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 23:26, 2 August 2010 (BST)
  • Strong Vouch - Misanthropy is a weak and somewhat unwilling to commit member of the sysop team. He occasionally presents dissenting opinions, but just as often agrees, and he's not afraid to waffle on his stance. His leadership skills are lackluster at best, and he's doing his best to keep away from the parts of the wiki that don't interest him. All of these make him an excellent sysop. Aichon 23:29, 2 August 2010 (BST)
    I learnt from the best. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 23:34, 2 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch - Remind me to hunt him down and violently murder him. You know, for funsies. --VVV RPGMBCWS 23:43, 2 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch FF that farce already. -- Spiderzed 23:47, 2 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch - I've witnessed some strange moments from misanthropy but there was never a point where I thought it came anywhere close to outweighing his pros. -- 02:05, 3 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch - After reading the above, I have lost my wit for the night. Sadness. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 08:04, 3 August 2010 (BST)
  • Misanthropy is a good sysop that does his job well. As DDR said, he's had some strange moments, but I've never seen anything that makes me think that he's fundamentally unsuited to the job. He's one of the most active sysops on the wiki at the moment, and he's very good at what he does. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:00, 3 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch even though I do hate your sig! --Honestmistake 14:46, 3 August 2010 (BST)
  • Vouch I'm going to kill myself for doing this, But yes, misantropy is responsible for half the stuff that goes on on this wiki. So she needs to stay sysop.-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 15:53, 3 August 2010 (BST)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

Archived Evaluations


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)