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:Krazy Monkey (Cheese)

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

Right that's it pretty much my turn now. For those who haven't seen me about, I've been sysoping for about 3 years now. I've been rather quiet the past few months because of a lack of internet in my flat coupled with a mountain of coursework but aside from a couple of exams next week, I'm hopefully going to be much more active than I have been lately. =) From last time, it was noted that I had a tendency to insta-rule on VB cases. I have hopefully (on those cases I was around to rule on) improved on this. Comments, questions, etc are very much appreciated.

Ta muchlies. -- Cheese 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question - If you fail this re-evaluation, and therefore be demoted, would you still stay on here as an active member? (If so, as much if you were to stay sysops)? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'd definitely do my best to. -- Cheese 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Damn Cheese, you're difficult. On one hand, you're a old vet, you do the janitorial tasks and usually have a good, logical sense of judgment. You're a great sysop...when you're around that is. I simply can't ignore the fact that you have less then 400 edits in the whole year of 2010. You're on the good path now, but this was (unintentional?) the same matter on your last re-evaluation, where you disappeared again shortly afterward. I'd vouch for old times sake, but taking everything in consideration, I'm abstaining for now. I think I have never abstained before on a promotion bid, that says enough. The bureaucrats may have a tough decision here (it would be for me at least) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I remember seeing Cheese for a while when I first started getting really active on the wiki but not much after that until recently. Between his absenteeism and my relative newness, it's hard to forumlate a real opinion of the guy. But from what I've seen of his recent activity and what I've seen in Admin Archives, I like. So I'll give an Optimistic Vouch cuz I'd like to see what the dude can do. ~ 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Against - User has not been active since August, and only returned conveniently right before his reevaluation. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  I made a handful of edits between September and October due to my internet was non-existent, some in November when uni eased off a bit, no edits in December because of uni and family stuff and now I'm free to get back to doing stuff again. Fair enough my evaluations due but what does that matter? I was inactive for a while, felt it was only fair that I muck in and take back up the slack I left. Quality over quantity any time. -- Cheese 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Indents only. It's not numbered. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  It was about 5 minutes ago. Aichon changed it over. I blame Thad. -- Cheese 23:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  I normally do. It's not really fair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  Meh, he won't mind. -- Cheese 23:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  >:( Silly format error of me, sowwie) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch Hes a veteran, don't kill him--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Against - Cheese is a good guy and he definitely has been doing better about not making rash rulings. He's particularly helpful in cases where the other sysops are deadlocked and he can come in with an objective opinion and break the stalemate. The problem is that we heard very similar statements regarding his inactivity 8 months ago when he was last re-evaluated. At the time, I took him at his word that he would have a "summer of epic free time to kill on this place", but, ironically, he's actually had less edits this term (212 of them as of a few minutes ago) than he had in the term immediately prior to that, and of the ones he's had, over half (120ish) have been since the start of the new year. I might interpret the recent contributions as the start of another period of prolonged activity, but the exact same thing happened last time he had an A/RE too, so I'm not exactly inclined to interpret it that way this time, given what happened last time. I'm pretty much with Thad on this one. If it hadn't happened before, I'd vouch for what you've done and give you another chance, which is pretty much what I did last time. Not this time though. :( —Aichon— 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Only on the grounds that over his last year he has made few edits. Although he's a veteran, he's being judged on his last term, not his whole term (which, even then, has been declining as of late). More or less explained above, and so there's no point in me rephrasing it. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Why is being not as active such a bad thing, especially on a wiki of such dwindling size? Will he forget how to edit, what policy is, or where his feet go (in his shoes)? I don't think so. This place is little and simple, it is no big deal. He's not a politician. As long as he is able to do the few extra tasks available to him over an average user, then I see no problem. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch - Pretty much as AHLG. -MHSstaff 01:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Very Weak Against - I was well aware of Cheese's poor activity and was always prepared to vouch because he's always been a great op, realistic thinker, etc. But when it comes down to it I don't think I want to anymore, he's just never around. But what makes this an against instead of an abstain is the above promises. I've always been an advocate for banishing sysops who appeal to the community with promises of future activity with no past credibility, but, like General's second bid, my loathing of it just becomes pure wrath when they do it a second time after failing on the same promise 8 months ago. Cheese loses extra points for doing the same on crat elections too, again with no attempt to follow through. I dig cheese because he's always been a good op, but that asset diminishes a bit when he's rarely here. If it were up to me (and to an extent it will be), I'd be inclined to take Cheese up on his promises and make him show us this activity, but as a regular user. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Cheese has done some darn good stuff when he's active, but as Aichon pointed out, there's a certain yo-yo cycle in KM's activity. I'd first want to see that he's active for real and a prolonged time before I'd trust him with op powers for another 8 months. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - And fully aware that you might not be active until your next evaluation. Cheese brings opinions to the table which no other users really do, and he's usually bang on the money, in my opinion. When he's here, he's a fantastic sysop, and frankly, if he ceased to be one, I feel we might lose him from the community. Still, I was very much in two minds about him. I do believe however, if we fail to re-evaluate him, Cheese will be a sore loss to the community.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch activity does not equal quality and I think Cheese does a decent job here... I would like to see him do more of it but that's hardly the point. --Honestmistake 11:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Cheese is a veteran of this wiki now, which means he's entitled to certain perks. Like an elderly walmart greeter, he only has to show up for an hour a week and ask if anyone needs a buggy.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - As gnome.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch - He hasn't been that active, but makes a good sysop when needed. I'd personally feel better if he was more active... --Cited Literature Critc, Mead Sheaffer. 19:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Weak Against - While you're a great op, I feel your activity over the last year hasn't been high enough (although it may be a bit rich coming from me >_>). WHile it ahs picked up recently, I feel it's more prudent to see a return to activity without the looming re-evaluation. If your activity picks up again, I'd be happy to vouch for you in a promotion bid.-- Adward  21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

User:Rosslessness

Archived as successful here. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Yonnua Koponen

Archived as successful here. -- LEMON #1 02:45, 12 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)