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

Cyberbob

Looks like it's my time in the sun. Cyberbob  Talk  09:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have a question, how do you feel you've done as a sysop over the past 8 months? --
   
   
   
   
  10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  The first few months of that period were pretty dumb and dramariffic but the last few have been pretty good I think. Cyberbob  Talk  10:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Which is pretty ironic considering the first is true and the latter is because you haven't been that active the last few weeks. --Thadeous Oakley 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Weeks != months. I have by and large stayed out of trouble since September or October, and I have always been a hard worker in all my time as a sysop. I only dropped off in activity at the start of the new year when a certain few IRL things came into play that reduced the amount of time I have to spend on the internet. Those are nearly over though; shouldn't be more than a week or so. Cyberbob  Talk  10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch - You've done good --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 10:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain - I'm going to make a decision in the next few hours/days, but for now I'll withhold my voice. --Thadeous Oakley 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch -Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Bobbo's been grand. 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - In Bob we trust. -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - I've known CB here and in NW for about four years or so, and while he can be a bit of a troll sometimes, he is generally honest and stands by his convictions. When you consider his knowledge of the wiki and that he is willing to do a lot of the bitch sysop work around here, I really don't see why he should lose his buttons. -- MHSstaff 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch I didn't vouch Bob as sysop and would still be wary about doing so if this were a fresh bid. That said, he has done a decent job and mostly avoided trolling while on duty and it would be churlish of me to say no based only on our personal disagreements.--Honestmistake 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC).
• Against - The sole reason why the wiki sucks. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - Whore'd out his beliefs for power, all around faggot--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Bob has shown a rare ability to actually listen to criticism and self-correct. It's a quality I admire and a good example for all wiki users. He does a lot of good work and he's turned me from a staunch opponent into a believer. Moar koolaid please.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... HAHA... haha... ha... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch - As long as CB has confidence that his RL will allow him to resume sysop duties with regularity for the majority of his next term, he can keep his buttons. Also because Sonny and WOOT are against the idea. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  See the talk page

• Vouch Massive anal bastard. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• AGAINST Because i can... and hes an asshole--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sonny, Rakuen and now you? Clearly I'm doing something right. Cyberbob  Talk  20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• MEGA AGAINST YOU LEAVE MY BOOBS ALONE YOU CAD!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  See the talk page

• Vouch - I have to say that I too am not the largest fan of his somewhat abrasive personality, but when it comes to getting the job done, he gets it done. It's really that simple. —Aichon— 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch I can fap to this. --Irishmen 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  what's with all these blasts from the past, g*sh Cyberbob  Talk  22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch I enjoy pissing Sonny off. --Officer Maddox 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  See the talk page

• Abstain < but purely because I haven't been around here much lately. That said, when I was around, Bob was a drama-prone sysop, but still one of the better ones. So, a Vouch, I guess. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rooster

Scheduled Re-evaluation of The Rooster. Community input now!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, the least you could have done, as the bid creator, is told him about his own bid. This may have slipped past him since it's such an underused page and he only comes here periodically. --

 

 

 

 

08:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DDR. Anyway, not much to say, I would think my use of the tools is not an issue. I'm periodically less active and don't offer opinions on A/VD or A/M so feel free to take issue with that. Otherwise I would hope I'm up to scratch. --  RoosterDragon  14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, sorry, Rooster. It was 10 o'clock at night, and I guess I just assumed it would be found.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Me Rikey - That's a vouch. 22:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Can't see any problems here. --Honestmistake 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yarp - 'nuff said. -- Cheese 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Auto-vouch --Bob Boberton^{TF / DW} 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Given some of the messages on your user page, do you actually still want to be a sysop during 2010? --MHSstaff 01:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sure I do, I just expect to be less active for a while. No doubt I'll be suddenly return to super-active at some point in the future though. --  RoosterDragon  14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Vouch As Maverick. -- MHSstaff 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch - Unless Rooster decides that he no longer wants the buttons, I see no reason to take them away. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch I put him up for his initial bid (1) 8 months ago and he hasn't disappointed. --
   
   
   
   
  09:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - durr Cyberbob  Talk  10:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - Far, far too inactive as a person. Rooster has made many bots, but sometimes I think he is one himself. Against until he makes an actual response on his re-evaluation. -- Thadeous Oakley 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  I am less active of late, tis a fair point. What do you mean that I'm 'like a bot' though? --  RoosterDragon  14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  You do allot of work here, but you rarely interact with the community, that's all. Anyway, Vouch for taking the time to respond. Most people wouldn't bother doing so with a clear pro-majority like this. --Thadeous Oakley 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch - As Mav. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - As Mav too. —Aichon— 07:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - I feel that we can still trust him with the tools.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - damn it.. i want moar drama. where is izzy?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 05:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Could be a bit more actve in at least A/M, but on the basis of the excellent work he does elsewhere he deserves his buttons.-- Adward  14:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - This is an easy decision.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Bandwagon. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - I have seen no effort to change the mob mentality of the sysop community and undo the faggotry created by the current regime of retards. The current sysops are so far up each others' asses that they've formed a gaytrain bound for fail and sodomy. You are guilty of promoting the nepotism and e-corruption created by the other sysops by not fighting it. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Haven't done anything that would require him to be demoted --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 11:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch WHY THE FUCK NOT?--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch As Armpit. Cookies and Cream 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against - You make cheese and J3D look like the definition of respectable sysops. You have done nothing but fed into the circlejerk power whoring ways of the sysops team, and have done nothing to even try and change things. Enjoy keeping the UDwiki shitty. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - Sonny and WOOT are pretty much dead on (I can't believe I'm saying that...) However, Roosters make poor scapegoats. --WanYao 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  additional conversation on talk page --

   

   

   

   

  13:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vouch - allah akbar--star 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) - Vandal contribution struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vouch - even stronger vouch if he can make a bot to ban the spammer above me. -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• One of the responses above makes it pointless for anyone else to even bother contributing to this re-evaluation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

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	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)