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

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Bob Moncrief: Against)
(Other Comments)
Line 70: Line 70:
 
::That makes sense. Good idea and my apologies. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 06:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 
::That makes sense. Good idea and my apologies. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 06:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 
:::No need for apologies! ^_^ {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 
:::No need for apologies! ^_^ {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 +
 +
# '''For''' them all. --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  
 
==Archived Re-Evaluations==
 
==Archived Re-Evaluations==

Revision as of 20:52, 20 July 2016

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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 Being Discussed

A Helpful Little Gnome

  • For - Gnome isn't as often around as he used to be, but he is there when you need him, which is good enough for me. -- Spiderzed 21:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - AHLG lives up to his name pretty much every single time we need his help. He may be mostly inactive, but that's only because there isn't work that needs doing. It's quite clear he's still around when needed, such as when he randomly appeared a few weeks ago to clean up an old case that needed archiving. Aichon 15:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aichon

  • For - But only when he runs for crat again next time. -- Spiderzed 21:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    I give it honest consideration each time it comes around. So far my opinion hasn't changed, but maybe it will at some point. Aichon 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    The check is in the mail. Aichon 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - He's a demigod on this wiki and I've never seen him do anything that would warrant another vote than this one. PB&J 13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    Where by "demigod", I'm sure you mean "janitor". Possibly "tinkerer", though I don't do as much of that these days. Aichon 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For— Honestly, the only thing damaging my trust in Aichon’s judgment as Urban Dead Wikipedia Sysop is the fact that he’s still an Urban Dead Wikipedia Sysop. Tongue :P ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    Who calls it, "Urban Dead Wikipedia"? Ugh. Aichon 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Bob Moncrief

Hey! An initial message — I recently did an AMA over at NecroConnect in conjunction with the bureaucrat elections, so if you'd like some background info, feel free to head over there and check it out. I'll be at a conference and off UD for a chunk of the middle of the A/RE period, but if you leave questions I'll answer them as soon as I get back. Cheers! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 05:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • For - I initially didn't put up Bob for A/RE as per precedent under the old system, and I think it would be very silly to dismiss a crat mere weeks after election. -- Spiderzed 21:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - I still think he's too soft when vandalism occurs but it's not like it's a big deal. Bob still does a large share of the work on the wiki which is fantastic. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - He's my hero on all things concerning the wiki. PB&J 13:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You did an awful job linking your AMA and for that reason I'm just not sure you’re right for the job — you just may not be enough of a publicity whore for… oh, who am I kidding, you were even more of a successfully absentee bureaucrat than I was, and that’s sayin’ somethin’. Four more beers! ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Against...letting him ever leave again. Bob continues to be the model user on which the rest of us should base our performance. As I've said before, that sort of behavior deserves to be punished by giving him a place on the sysop team. Aichon 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Boxy

  • For - Boxy isn't an op anymore, he is part of our inventory. -- Spiderzed 21:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - As Spider. Boxy may largely be an absentee 'op at this point, but he's been consistent for years in terms of what you can expect from him, and what we can expect is a levelheaded approach with sane rulings. Aichon 15:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Misanthropy

  • My vote depends on whether he appears again during the A/RE or not. 3 months of complete absence are extreme even under current circumstances. -- Spiderzed 21:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - If he came back after demotion he'd just run again and get in. Just cut out the middle step. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Question — Are you around? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • penis ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As Spider. Mis teases us with his presence, then leaves. And who doesn't want more Mis? Vandals and hooligans, that's who. Aichon 15:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Spiderzed

  • Spiderzed (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
  • For - although, since its time for reflection, I'll never forget the Jonny Rotten case and the baffling decision by many sysops here to defend SZ and co's actions to defy logic and precedent. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For— And as one of “& co” I was glad to see sense win out over “logic” and “precedent”. Tongue :P Seriously duder, coming up on 5 years and you’re still not over it? ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    I just think in general people's memories are too short. I enjoy bringing up awkward stuff. A ZOMBIE ANT 21:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For - Spider keeps things simple and even-keeled, which is exactly what's necessary of a great 'op and 'crat. Aichon 15:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Other Comments

I support keeping all these. We should add more, gotta collect them all.--KCLZANecroConnect 08:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone listed above should be demoted. --Rosslessness ; the shambling custodian of UD's past... 14:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is bob part of this if he's a newly picked crat? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm submitting myself (see here) as I think it's unfair that I'd go pretty much two years with no regular A/RE under the new system. (Longer if I'm a crat in July 2017 etc too.) Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Good idea and my apologies. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No need for apologies! ^_^ Bob Moncrief EBDW! 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. For them all. --hagnat 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Archived Re-Evaluations

For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:

Re-Evaluations Scheduling

User Position Last Contribution Seat Available
A Helpful Little Gnome (Contribs) Sysop 2021-05-30 N/A
Bob Moncrief (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2021-06-16 2021-06-01
DanceDanceRevolution (Contribs) Sysop 2021-05-29 N/A
Rosslessness (Contribs) Sysop 2021-05-29 N/A
Stelar (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2021-04-22 2021-06-01

Total Sysops: 5 (excluding Kevan, LeakyBocks and Urbandead)

Last updated at: 00:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements