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:Boxy

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

Been a long time (April fools last year) since I've needed one of these, so yeah, have at it -- boxy 10:22, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• vouch box is sysop for life.--User:Sexualharrison12:06, 27 October 2012
• Question What sustains your continued interest in UDwiki? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 12:34, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Vouch' - Obviously, activity could use a bit of a poke sometimes. However, for one con, Boxy's stability and usefulness, as always, outweigh any issues, and his continues ultra-long-term activity is a great offset for any short-term droughts he may have. A ZOMBIE ANT 15:01, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Vouchin it up Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:27, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Vouch --Papa Moloch 15:30, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Vouch - I'd like to draw a distinction between inactivity (not contributing) and absence (not being here to edit). You're frequently inactive, but you generally are good about being here when the wiki needs you. More than that, you are one of only a handful of sysops I've seen who can walk into a seemingly-complex situation and just hand down a simple resolution that makes sense and cuts through all the BS. As a 'crat, your infrequent absences got in the way a few times, but as a sysop, you've been a huge help in dealing with bots these last few months, and your opinions are very, very welcome whenever drama does arise. That said, I'm curious about your response to Ross' question as well. —Aichon— 17:09, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Vouch ~ _{17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)}

Spiderzed

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

Spidey, you're up. Gordon 00:00, 27 October 2012 (BST)

Yaddayadda, more than 50 edits since last A/RE, yaddayadda, plan to continue. With these trivial points sorted out, feel free to shoot your questions. -- Spiderzed█ 00:18, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• Question- What do you plan to do in the immediate future that warrants/requires your continued position as Sysop? ValorGigo 00:37, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  I plan to continue what I already do best - to be continually around, whack the weeds without slacking, and add a neutral, just answer to any drama that comes up. I've never went out of my way to become a sysop, or have created any personality cult - my first (and immediately successful) bid wasn't even opened by myself. The community deemed what I do good enough to grace me with sys-op powers, and I will continue just doing my thing as long as the community deems that thing worthy of being augmented by sys-op powers. I never offered more, but I would never ever be satisfied with less. -- Spiderzed█ 00:48, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• Vouch - Anyone who spends even 5 minutes looking at recent changes can see that Spidey is one of the most active sysops and wiki janitors we have. He gets on with the spambot killing grunt work and has a great understanding of wikilaw should that ever be needed. Gordon 00:40, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Question - What is your favorite part of being a sysop? And your least favorite? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:10, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  The favourite part? I can get more done than I could as a regular user, and can FF no-brainer tasks like speedy deletions without creating work or someone else. The least favourite part? Most of the drama, although we have become very quiet in that regard in the last few months. -- Spiderzed█ 03:52, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  Vouch, thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:27, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  I always figured we were opposites, this just confirmed my suspicions.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:54, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• Vouch - a stable and helpful op. SZ gets my thumbs up. Except try and keep the April Fool's jokes off admin pages in future, my fragile, humourless heart can barely manage them. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:29, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Question -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 01:35, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  If a woodchuck could chuck wood, he would chuck as much wood as he could. -- Spiderzed█ 03:52, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  In light of this response, I may need to reconsider my stance. —Aichon— 04:07, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• Vouch - I thought about asking a question, but that would be greedy and pointless of me, since I already know what I think in this matter. —Aichon— 02:07, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• vouch. ~ _{05:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)}
• Question Looking at the up and coming wikizens, is there anyone you think could be a potential sysop of the future? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 11:59, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  I've seen quite a few wikizens coming and going who could have become sys-ops, but haven't grabbed the opportunity when they had it. Of the currently active users, I think the following could get there:

  • Bob Moncrief - Constantly around, constantly doing things, constantly involved in issues of the week (like the sidebar disussion currently), and not creating artificial drama and work. He's not quite there yet, but if he keeps it up, I am fairly confident about him.
  • MHSStaff - He might not be new, but he knows his wiki stuff and always tinkers on stuff. He'd would probably need to step up his game a bit to have a chance in A/PM, but he could get there with little extra effort. And what he does now would be perfectly sufficient from then on, as the sys-op seat is hard to climb on, but also hard to fall from once you got there.
  • Vapor - Should _never_ have requested demotion. He has no buttons, and still gets more stuff done than Boxy, General and Rev combined, so prediction of activity should never have been his reasoning.
  • DDR - I was never the greatest fan of his sys-opping, and am not up to today. That being said, he knows the ropes and still sticks around, so whenever the Getting Shit Actually Done Ratio (workload divided by sys-op hibernation) becomes too terrible, his name will be one to be tossed around, and that rightfully so.

  That would be my current run-down. It's lighter on really new users than I would like to, but with such a volunteer job that requires you to be wrong in the head, and with a smaller and smaller pool each year, we have to grab who we can. -- Spiderzed█ 16:14, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• cunt keep da buttons.--User:Sexualharrison12:05, 27 October 2012
• Vouch --Papa Moloch 15:30, 27 October 2012 (BST)
• Question - How much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:10, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  A woodchuck will only chuck certain wood, likely that which is found in their natural, prairie habitat. Therefore, the lack of trees on the prairie is quite closely related to the chucking of wood performed by these wood-chucking woodchucks. -- Spiderzed█ 17:08, 27 October 2012 (BST)

  Congratulations. You've passed the first barrier. Question 2. Do you like Mudkips? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:00, 27 October 2012 (BST)

• Vouch - Decent enough, and hey, I was the one who made him indirectly sysops in the first place. So better to be consistent than wrong I guess! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:54, 27 October 2012 (BST)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

• The General's re-evaluation was archived as unsuccessful -- boxy 11:23, 12 October 2012 (BST)
• Revenant's re-evaluation was archived as successful -- boxy 11:23, 12 October 2012 (BST)
• Karek's re-evaluation was archived as successful -- boxy 11:23, 12 October 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)