UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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 still open for discussion

User:Red Hawk One

Looks like he won't make it in time to put himself up, so lest his A/RE comes up too late, I'm doing it. -- Spiderzed 20:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Boxy

Yeah, tell me what you think, I can't get enough of that shit.

My reelection platform. "So many jackasses, so little time."

-- boxy talkteh rulz 12:44 24 March 2011 (BST)

  • vouch - -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 13:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Give him a rank higher than bureaucrat. And someone push through a policy that says boxy is never to go through another re-election. -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • vouch i agree. i think boxy should replace keven as our lord and god.-- bitch 13:18 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Vouch - Since his voluntary demotion, his activity has overall dropped, but he still does good work in areas as A/PD. -- Spiderzed 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    Strong Vouch - Wouldn't have promoted Thad if he had still been crat. -- Spiderzed 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Against - As one of said jackasses, I disapprove. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    wow who didn't see that coming. and i thought he called you a dumbass? way to stay neutral and judge someone on all of the good works they have done on here for years. can't wait for your revaluation asshole.-- bitch 15:05 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    Is it just me, or do I have a stalker? --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    Your lack of reference to injokes of history disappoints me. Greatly. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    ? Can I have a hint? --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    Arsehole. The word of choice was "arsehole". Precision, people! -- Spiderzed 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    Since people seem to get so terribly upset by the fact that I dared to go Against on Boxy I'll explain something. My "vote" was a small wink to the fact that Boxy has never really gotten along with me. I don't mind Boxy staying on, and it was pretty clear from the start he would breeze through this. As a sidenote it's pretty ridiculous to see how people immediately jump on top of me for such a simple thing. Boxy is a big boy, I doubt that he really needs such a fierce defense. Knowing Boxy he really doesn't give shit about this, but if he did, then I'm sure he's capable and rather did reply himself rather letting you do it for him. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    It's not really about defending boxy at all. It's more their disapproval of someone remaining against simply because of self admitted personal reasons. An against is an implication that you don't want him on the team. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    Like I said, it wasn't really all too serious. I don't find the immediate outcry necessary. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    try leading by example, you wanted to be a sysop so badly. well start acting like one-- bitch 15:32 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • vouch - as a new and inexperienced sysop I look up to boxy and his experience here. Would love to see him stick around.~Vsig.png 15:18, 24 March 2011
  • vouch - Always and ever, Boxy consistently is willing to discuss why he makes the decisions he makes and I've never really had much issue with him beyond the occasional and extremely rare lapse in judgement that he's always been willing to correct once he's realized it. He's what sysops should aspire to be well, him or Vista. --Karekmaps?! 15:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Supreme Lord of the wiki.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - No words need be said. -- Cheese 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch. When I break my own rules, I do so because it needs to be done. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    ZOMG, Ross voting on a RE. To the A/M-mobile! -- Spiderzed 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    It needs to be done? I dunno, but Boxy seems to sit pretty well when it comes to vouches already. Unless you're worried about my all-powerful all-defying against of course. --Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - Obviously.-- | T | BALLS! | 18:46 24 March 2011(UTC)
  • Vouch - This wiki needs more Box--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - puts up with a lot and works hard. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - As KV. -MHSstaff 22:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Amazingly Strong Vouch - As Spiderzed, because Thad is an idiot. --Ash  |  T  |  яя  | 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - I still demand that Boxy gets reelected as 'crat. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch - He's always been willing to clearly explain his reasoning. Haven't agreed with every decision I've read, but have always been satisfied that he was doing his due diligence.--FT 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch Asheets 16:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Vouch Boxy will always be a permasysop here on this wiki as long as he wants to stay... really no reason to vouch for him only for the reason to call Thad a faggot.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thad is a faggot - therefore, i vouch for boxy --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 20:25, 26 March 2011 (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


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)