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

Revenant

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

It is due today, so I am putting it up as long as it is yet the 15th. -- Spiderzed█ 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch - not vouching for Rev means you support zerging, people who pretend to be nazis in shitty online games, and Dracoguard--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Supreme Vouch - certainly one of the best around here User:Generaloberst/s 20:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• against - he so not around lately. he must be getting laid. when he gets dumped by the fat girl that he is chasing after he will come crawling back out of kat's pussy and enlighten us all with topical quotes from other wikis and emoticons. if he wants it. get busy man. i mean VOOCH--User:Sexualharrison23:32, 15 January 2012 (bst)
• Vouch - can I say as per anime? -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  03:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• against - when he does manage to hang around he sucks D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question - How many edits per week, for every week, do you plan on making, on average, if we choose to keep you? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - Never did anything that would justify his antics, let alone his constant spurts of prolonged inactivity. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Arguably, I've only been around for a month or two, but I have no idea who this is... :/ --Shortround 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Questions - How often do you actually check into the wiki these days? And are you still interested in doing this? ~ _{14:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)}

  There are sysops that are less active than Revenant. Have those ever got criticized for that? In my eyes Revenant is a pretty good. User:Generaloberst/s 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yes they have but that wasn't criticism, it was a question; one meant for Revanent. Also learn to indent. ~ _{02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)}

  Bwuh how to answer question not addressed to me D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Against - Short spurts of activity, followed by long bursts of inactivity, coupled with less than 150 edits in the last six months. Not a good record for a sysop. --
• Against - I never really did like his name. And personally just gives me the heeby jeebies whenever I see him on the wiki. That is to say, if I do see a post by him, which is not very common.--Krazymouse 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch -        19:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Karek

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

It's time for Karek's re-evaluation. Community convene.

• Vouch - I'm pretty sure the wiki could explode and he'd know how to put it back together. ~ _{05:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)}
• Vouch as much as i disagree with karek. he is very skilled wikifu ogre, and this dump needs him.--User:Sexualharrison07:31, 10 January 2012 (bst)
• vouch D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - Karek knows what he's doing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 07:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - I haven't been around much, but I like what Karek did on the sysop demotions policy. Always good to be increasing accountability.--Shortround 10:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - Proven biased in a vandal banning case. User:Generaloberst/s 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - Everyone clashes occassionally with Karek, but no one doubts his technical expertise. -- Spiderzed█ 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Couch - Certainly capable of entering into wiki-philosophical discussions. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch        03:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - Hates Nazis, but in a good way, like Indiana Jones--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - He's fine for me. Asheets 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• He applies the rules without fear or favour, and looks out for the best interests of the wiki. Couldn't ask for anything more, really -- boxy 02:16, 12 January 2012 (BST)
• Vouch - I've always been a Karek fan.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - The virtues outweigh the vices. Just. -- Thadeous Oakley [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; ot to retain him.--The General <subackground-color: white">Talk]] 10:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - He's done a good job; don't see any reason np>T
• Vouch with a helping of mayo - While I personally don't agree with a couple of his views, I still think he's a great Sysop! KEEP IT UP! --Krazymouse 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sys U! P! F! 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

There have been no 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)