UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|[[A/RE]]}}
{{Shortcut|[[A/RE]]}}
{{Moderationnav}}
{{Administrationnav}}
{{Re-evaluations Intro}}
{{Re-evaluations Intro}}
==Re-Evaluations Being Discussed==
<!--
''There are currently no open Re-Evaluations.''
-->


==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed==
==Recent Re-Evaluations==
===[[User:The General]]===
As the oldest sysop, General is first for re-evaluation as per [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Reevaluations|the new]] policy. We've never done this before, but because it's a week and not a fortnight, the crats might want to consider starting the week-long time period from when he acknowledges this, rather than from when I put him up. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|BlueViolet}}-- 01:30, 20 August 2009 (BST)
:Thanks you, I acknowledge this re-evaluation bid confirm that I wish to continue as a sysop. Anyway, a bit about me: I'm one of the longest running sysops on the wiki, having been promoted in 2006. I've tried to act fairly and in the interests of the wiki throughout that time and I've helped to write several policies. I went up for re-evaluation in 2007 and I'm up again now as per the recently passed policy.--{{User:The General/sig}} 15:29, 20 August 2009 (BST)


* '''Vouch''' - Although I haven't seen him for a while, his more recent edits are gold, and he's a valuable sysop. Also, I find it awesome that i get to be the first voucher on a re-evaluation.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 23:04, 20 August 2009 (BST)
The 2020 Re-Evaluations have begun. They will go for 2 weeks and end on 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC).  
* '''Against''' - --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 23:06, 20 August 2009 (BST)
* '''Vouch''' - He's not as active as I like the average sysop to be, but, like SA, he's always around. I trust him and I'd like him to stay on the team. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|BlueViolet}}-- 00:29, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - Despite disagreeing with The General as often as I do (which, thinking about it, isn't ''all'' that often) I don't think the sysop team could do without him. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:40, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Abstain''' I have issues with the direction I've seen The General try to take things in the past, but I am glad to see him joining in more so I won't be a dick and speak out against him. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:57, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - Punk, ska, comedy.  He's old enough to know better, and he generally seems to, so yeah. -[[User:Wulfenbach|Wulfenbach]] 03:40, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Abstain''' - I went to The General to save some time, only to find that he did not have the best car insurance rates on line. On a more serious note, I don't feel qualified to judge him given my relatively limited experience.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 03:42, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - it would be sad to see another old dinosaur go. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 03:51, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*<s>Vouch</s> --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:17, 21 August 2009 (BST)
:*'''Abstain''' Vote changed. I can't vote Vouch due to his long-term inactivity. One doesn't have to log in 20 times a day to be a good sysop, but until VERY recently The General has been one of those enigmatic "mystery sysops" who might show up for a misconduct or vandalism vote here and there, but little else. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:04, 23 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Abstain''' - Honestly, I don't know at this point.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:56, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Question''' - How many edits have you made in the last 3 months that have required sysop status? I have seen you on A/VB a few times but am a bit concerned about your seeming lack of activity. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:03, 21 August 2009 (BST)
:*'''very weak against''' On balance I think you have been far too inactive for months. Its unfortunate that this has come up just as you are starting to contribute again as you are a good sysop but that doesn't change the fact that you just have not been doing the job recently. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:54, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Against''' - I'm disturbed by his puritanical censorship over on the deletions page, and general lack of sysop activity.  Why have the badge if you never visit the office? --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 16:49, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - He's good at what he does, so we should let him continue. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:30, 21 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Against''' - I don't believe him active enough anymore.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 11:54, 22 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Against''' - This is what this policy is for, to re-evaluate. General is lucky he is first because he will get it over and done with and the crats wont demote the first person who gets put up. He is far too inactive really.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:08, 22 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Against''' - He's a good kid, but he's inactive, and looking through his contributions, I'm not really seeing much in the way of administration edits. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 14:58, 22 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Vouch''' - Seems good enough to stay [[User:Ephraim|Ephraim]] 00:18, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Against''' - Who? If I don't even know who you are, probably shouldn't be a sysop.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>19:55 24 August 2009(BST)</tt>
*'''Against''' - As Honestmistakes unanswered question implies, he doesn't really need to be a sysop to log two entries for March, or to come out of retirement every so often to rule on a misconduct case.  Seems like a great guy, but we shouldn't keep him as a sysop just because he's an [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ent.htm Ent].--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 20:27, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*:It was answered on his talk page, and for a well explained reason. And quite timely, I might add. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|BlueViolet}}-- 22:37, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*::For the record the GEnerals answer wasn't bad ands should he fail this and restand as a Sysop once his activity goes back to former levels I will vouch for him. However as he is still in Italy and was due back months ago I cannot be sure of him remaining active.... hence my (very weak) against! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 22:55, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Abstain''' - As I am just now getting started at this point, I'm in no position to judge. But from what I've seen and heard, he's a good community member (if a slightly inactive one) whom alot of people like. --[[User:Johnny Yossarian|Johnny Yossarian]] 21:52, 24 August 2009 (BST)
*Against - i don't like people who are so inactive being able to make important decisions about issues that have no idea about.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:00, 25 August 2009 (BST)


===[[User:Conndraka]]===
Please provide your opinions of the sysops undergoing evaluation below. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Well I figure we might as well get this out of the way as well since the General and I have about a month between us. Admittedly I'm not as active as I'd like to be but I do have the occasional burst of activity. I have specific views on numerous subjects that don't always fit in with "the majority opinion" but I do try and represent the views that would otherwise go unnoticed. Additionally I know drama has had a tendency to stick to me...(oh wait..that's not drama, that's ....) but that is because of my tendency to not back down when I know something is wrong. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 17:20, 25 August 2009 (BST)
:The re-evaluation comment period has now elapsed. Please hold while our beloved Crats decide our fates. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


==Re-Evaluations Scheduling==
===Bob Moncrief===
''15:09, 19 August 2009 (BST)''
{{bid|Bob Moncrief|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Still foolish enough to carry workload in this dying place. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


*Total Sysops: '''12''' (excluding Kevan and Urbandead)
===Rosslessness===
{{bid|Rosslessness|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Ceux qui n’ont pas connu l’ancien régime ne pourront jamais savoir ce qu’était la douceur de vivre. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


For the most accurate time of promotion, see the <span class="stealthexternallink">[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page= user rights log]</span>.
===Stelar===
{{bid|Stelar|RE}}
*'''Vouch''' - Shows up on time and sober, which is more than can be said about most sys-ops. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Vouch''' - I endorse the product/service. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


{| class="wikitable sortable"
===Result===
! User
 
! Last Promotion
Unsurprisingly, the sysops under evaluation have been '''retained.''' Thanks to our two ex-sysops for pitching in to second the rubber-stamping. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
! Evaluation Due
 
|-
 
| [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Linkthewindow|Contribs]])</small>
See [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/2019-08-06 Re-Evaluations|2019 Re-Evaluations]]
| 2009-05-15
 
| 2010-01-15
==Archived Re-Evaluations==
|-
''For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:''
| [[User:Suicidalangel|Suicidalangel]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Suicidalangel|Contribs]])</small>
*[[:Category:{{CURRENTYEAR}}_Re-Evaluation_Archives|This year's re-evaluations]]
| 2009-08-15
*[[:Category:{{LASTYEAR}}_Re-Evaluation_Archives|Last year's re-evaluations]]
| 2010-04-15
*[[A/SA|Sysop Archives]] for older re-evaluations and related sysop activities
|-
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Check|Re-Evaluations Scheduling}}
| [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Boxy|Contribs]])</small>
| 2008-12-04
| DUE
|-
| [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Conndraka|Contribs]])</small>
| 2006-05-09
| DUE
|-
| [[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Cyberbob240|Contribs]])</small>
| 2009-06-21
| 2010-02-21
|-
| [[User:DanceDanceRevolution|DanceDanceRevolution]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/DanceDanceRevolution|Contribs]])</small>
| 2009-05-27
| 2010-01-27
|-
| [[User:Daranz|Daranz]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Daranz|Contribs]])</small>
| 2005-09-14
| DUE
|-
| [[User:Krazy Monkey|Krazy Monkey]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Krazy Monkey|Contribs]])</small>
| 2008-10-23
| DUE
|-
| [[User:Nubis|Nubis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Nubis|Contribs]])</small>
| 2009-02-21
| 2009-10-21
|-
| [[User:Swiers|Swiers]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Swiers|Contribs]])</small>
| 2008-10-09
| DUE
|-
| [[User:The General|The General]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/The General|Contribs]])</small>
| 2007-05-28
| DUE
|-
| [[User:The Rooster|The Rooster]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/The Rooster|Contribs]])</small>
| 2009-06-12
| 2010-02-12
|}

Latest revision as of 14:48, 25 July 2020

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

Recent Re-Evaluations

The 2020 Re-Evaluations have begun. They will go for 2 weeks and end on 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Please provide your opinions of the sysops undergoing evaluation below. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The re-evaluation comment period has now elapsed. Please hold while our beloved Crats decide our fates. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bob Moncrief

Rosslessness

Stelar

Result

Unsurprisingly, the sysops under evaluation have been retained. Thanks to our two ex-sysops for pitching in to second the rubber-stamping. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


See 2019 Re-Evaluations

Archived Re-Evaluations

For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:

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 2024-06-10 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)