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

User:Rosslessness

Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Regardless of what policy says a combination of crat votes, and other follies, has led to the fact haven't had a re-evaluation since I was promoted, or indeed had my position up for voting for 9 months. With this in mind ,and the fact that I've got two big gaps of inactivity coming up (both 3+weeks), I'm probably not going to rerun for crat next week. So its probably best to get myself re-evaluated. Enjoy. Feel free to ask questions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong vouch - Ross is not just an outstanding contributor to this wiki (as with the Spawning article or the ghost town guide), but also a very active op, and a very, very level-headed crat who kept his cool even with Cornholioo and wasn't afraid to point out to his fellow crat that it's a bit odd to vote on promotion bids. I'd really wish he'd stay as a crat, rather than to announce his withdrawal :( -- Spiderzed▋ 16:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Uber Strong Vouch - You're a great sysops and I'll leave the reasoning why for others. Something else: I highly, highly, recommend you stay on as Crat, not just because you're good at it but more importantly there is no good alternative. Boxy, Cheese and Redhawk are not active enough and/or expressed that they don't want the job. That leaves Yonnua and Misanthopy, candidates who are most definitely capable sysops, but (in my opinion) not ready yet for Crat (for various reasons, which most of you can guess). Hell, I think I'll have to protest vote for Vapor. This scenario is likely to happen and it worries me. If you share my thoughts, please be responsible and stay on. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Has yet to use his super-crat/sysop powers to make me a truly random variable for the wiki, but has been very solid otherwise. -MHSstaff 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Virtually faultless. Can't really say more. 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch - I think you're one of the (if not the) strongest sops the wiki has at the moment. There should really be no question about whether you're kept on the team. I don't believe that a few weeks of inactivity should constitute stepping down as 'crat. So if that is your only reason for considering stepping down for a while, I would urge you to reconsider. ~ 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• VOUCHARINO - I'd buy an action figure of him if one existed.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

User:Yonnua Koponen

Yonnua Koponen (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I'm opening my re-evaluation six days early, so that it doesn't conflict with my exams this January.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - He's one of the more active sysops, and has never significantly abused his power. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - If he weren't a social-democrat this would have been a Strong Vouch. Great sysop most of the time. I get along very well with him too. Not that that's really a criteria for sysopship, but f*ck that, I wouldn't be human without some bias. --Thadeous Oakley ^Talk 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - It should be obvious that he's capable to anyone who's been watching admin stuff around here. Some of his recent lines of thought in various controversial discussions seem a bit out of left field to me (i.e. I disagree with them and have great difficulty recognizing the merit of his side), but that's no reason to lobby against him. And though, at least to me, he's seemed a bit argumentative of late, he's still great at the job, does excellent work on the janitorial duties, and has done a good job of being consistent in application of the rules. All-in-all, while I don't agree with everything he says or the way he handles each issue, he contributes a unique, reasoned, and invaluable perspective to the sysop team and is well worth keeping on for another term. —Aichon— 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  Case in point for some left field thoughts: this whole thing going on with Vapor on A/PM. It makes no sense to me why he's going about things this way. I'm beginning to wish that we had another month or two before Yonn's A/RE, that way we could see if this was the new norm for him or if it was merely a phase he's going through, since it has been occurring with more frequency. I'm not the only one mentioning it, however, so hopefully he'll take it as the constructive criticism it is intended to be. —Aichon— 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - Keep up the good work, bro. ~ 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Yon is certainly one of the recently more active ops, who handles a lot of the day-to-day janitorial stuff as A/SD and tackles badly filed stuff pro-actively, as recently the Suburb BIC pages. However, what makes me more than a bit wary is his loose stance on privacy and data integrity, as seen here, here and most recently here. It doesn't hurt the wiki much if the janitorial stuff gets a bit slowly handled, but the damage that unwanted dox can do is irreparable. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'd also like to point out that the checkuser fiasco isn't an isolated instance. Yon has a history of privacy violation outside of the wiki. As a DA forums admin, he has publicy revealed IPs of members of hostile groups with the intent of bullying and intimidating them, and hasn't really seemed repentant about it when questioned about it.

  (Note: The IP was blanked in reaction to my questioning. But it clearly was revealed, as else I wouldn't have been able to track it to the French proxy.

  Also, while I wasn't involved with BCH at that time, I have joined them in reaction to that dox-dropping. So feel free take my input with a grain of salt due to being an involved party.)

  As for the recent A/PM meatpuppet discussion incident, I won't hold it up to highly, as it is just an isolated instance and might just have been the result of a bad day of Yon. Still, it's something an op clearly shouldn't do, IMHO. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Vouch as Aichon, and spiderzed. i still think he as the potential to improve. so lets give him the time to do do. he is at least learning from his mistakes.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 18:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch Does a great job with the daily chores but still not sure i trust his judgment on sensitive stuff. Perfect example of why some things should be separated from the normal sysop role... That said I mostly only lurk these days and it seems churlish to hold so far fairly minor infringements against him. --Honestmistake 03:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Asheets 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• He's got my vouch. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch - A little disappointed to see Yonnua wait for the rest of team to rule rather then ruling himself on the last VB case. He should have the experience by now to take the lead rather than follow in footsteps. That said, except for the whole checkuser fiasco, Yonnua's done a solid job far. -MHSstaff 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was waiting to see if anybody would turn up and over-rule the stupid precedent that allows you to put jokes on arbies. (Like Cheese did, but nobody else did).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  You basically just did it again with a pretty clear 3edit vandal. Just saying. -MHSstaff 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with a little restraint. Letting a vandal sit while waiting for a second opinion doesn't hurt anyone. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. Though I think I'd have liked to have seen Yonn or someone draw a line in the sand finally on spamming up admin pages, precedents be damned. It's about time that idiocy stopped, and while I fully accept my own responsibility in helping to maintain that precedent, it does need to go, but that's an entirely different matter. —Aichon— 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• As Aichon, pretty much. Yon does a crapload of janitorial stuff, competent and reasonably sane editor, etc, etc. The recent issue with checkuser gave me pause, but nothing worth demoting him over. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Yon, admittedly, does a lot of work here on the Wiki. That said, I have an issue with the unnecessary outing of my alt. Granted, it was no great secret but Yon didn't know that and I am not convinced that he understands what he did wrong to this day. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the Cunt - We've had our sweet sweet love-ins. We've laughed. We've cried. We've birthed babes into this harsh and inhospitable climate. We drank. We ate. We woke up hungover in the cold light of morning. We've argued about the etymology of the word "aluminum" (brits suck it and learn about my main home-slice Humphrey Davey OLD SHCOOOOOOL!!!!). Scotland FTW!!!! Main point, this fucking gangster would shank your mother and edit her drunken rants for grammatical correctness. This dude, my main motherfucking homie style G roughneck hardstyle friend would straight up arbitrate your ass if you came at him cross. Dig what I'm saying/ Serioyusly though I like Yonn. Hey man you got shit done bro. Keep it real my bro. Straigt up vouch and shit.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - is against a time and true tradition of the wiki: The Meatpuppet--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch -- I throw Yonnua my vouch. --Met Fan ^F 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch -- I personally don't like you. But as an admin you're better than bad, you're good. --keepster33 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Hardly surprising, but still needs to be said. Checkuser abuse (which not only gives me the impression you still don't actually feel you did wrong, which puts the fear in me that you'll do it again, but you've tried spinning standard checkuser procedure as "the same thing", which also puts the fear into me that you'll prove a hinderance to future A/VB cases); insane levels of paranoia concerning voting (innocent voters being accused of factioning and meatpuppeting just because you disagree with them is the antithesis of the democratic approach we aim towards), and today's explosion on Vapor's A/PM bid, which not only made no sense, but causes me to doubt your ability to work with future sysops. You are a liability to the sysop team, and increasingly, to the wiki as a whole. 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Safe. Does what is required without fuss, when he can. Willing to stand up when in the minority. Doesn't have an overly inflated sense of self-righteousness. Keep him, as penitence for his sins -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:53 8 January 2011 (BST)
• Against as per the quote from above - Does a great job with the daily chores but still not sure i trust his judgment on sensitive stuff. Perfect example of why some things should be separated from the normal sysop role... the role should be split and my vote against you is a protest vote.--C Whitty 14:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C Whitty (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Ross and I have discussed the re-evaluation bid, and we've decided to pass this bid as successful. Despite the result, Ross would like to give you a stern warning to follow the criticism mentioned in this bid, especially those related to IP checking matters. Personally, I think you heeded the official warning given in the misconduct case and haven't brushed up against breaking the guidelines since, but the community are very aware of your folly and would like you to make sure you never do it again, which is fair. A couple of mentions about your recent behaviour should be checked out too by the looks of it, though I've mentioned already it might be a reaction to IRL stress (from a sysop who's been prone to it before, I'm more than sympathetic) affecting the way you usually behave with the community.

Anyways, enough badgering, Yonnua's re-evaluation is successful and barring a few small hints, he is a very acceptable and favourable sysop in the eyes of the community. -- LEMON #1 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The warning is indeed heeded.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Dude. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)