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:Red Hawk One

• Red Hawk One (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)

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)

• Vouch - RHO may not be the most active sysop we have but I see the buttons as essential to this dragon's breath attack. ~ _{20:29, 26 March 2011}
• Questions - Do you still want to be a sysop and will you be around? -MHSstaff 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain - RHO has done good work for this wiki, but spurs of inactivity bring to question if there is still intrest in being a sysop for this community--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Against - No contribs for a month.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Let me try to stop this silly tirade of "but he's not active enough!" No one has yet to actually give a good reason why less activity is bad. I don't see how it has anything to do necessarily with him not wanting or not caring or not taking things seriously enough or whatever else. Perhaps he simply is busy with real life? This is should take precedent over the wiki. So, what's the big deal? Explain please. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  One more thing, if you're complaining that he isn't active enough as a sysop, how is removing him from being a sysop going to make him a more active sysop? Again, I'm sure he's just busy with real life, and that his activity has little to do with the wiki. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  RE isn't about determining "guilt" or somesuch. It is about checking if someone is fulfilling his obligations or not, without regards for the reasons. If someone lacks the time to take care of the wiki due to RL issues, they IMHO should just step down regardless of the reasons, just as someone coaching a junior soccer team or serving a similar honorary office. You might have a sick aunt and a dachshund with cancer, but if that means that you can only show up to one of your youth team's games per month, you plainly aren't viable as a soccer coach anymore. RHO can always follow the Cheese road, increase activity as a regular user and then re-apply. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  RE:I agree with this up to a point. If this were simply a question about move/protects/deletes, yeah, there isn't too much harm in keeping someone who knows what they are doing but is a little inactive around as a sysop. Not around? No big deal. Those buttons will still be there when they come back and they can sysop-gnome to their hearts content. But that's not the problem AHLG. The problem is that if he is not around, well, some of the other sysop jobs -- A/VB, A/M -- jobs that require some form of sysop consensus or vote -- become more problematic now. Good luck reaching some form of majority or consensus on those matters if we are going to keep people around who now become more or less "dead" votes. Keeping inactive sysops around is basically saying you are keeping them for maintenance duties and you are punting on the duties that require understanding the current community in some fashion or A/VB, A/M where only the sysops have a real say and the total number of "live" votes begins to matter. The community should at least ask the active/inactive question.-MHSstaff 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  You assume that this wiki is all important and vital. It's not. It's a hobby. Sometimes hobbies are shelved because other things are of issue. There is no obligation. There is no job. There is no duty. This is just fun, it is something to do. RHO has no all important destiny to do anything, the extra tasks he has are simply there because of an inherent problem of giving the ability to block/delete/murder/etc to everyone. It would make certain areas of the wiki difficult for maintaining an information source and a community. I would have it that everyone would be a sysop from the get-go, though like I mentioned, there is an inherent problem that some annoying person would delete the main page and block random joes. There is absolutely nothing special what-so-ever of being a sysop. Nothing, natta, zip. It's just a technical issue. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  One other little thing to add, I do see where you are coming from, and I would of course like to see more of RHO if only because I can see another familiar "face." It's just unfortunate that he isn't here more, like most any other user. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  I totally get where you are coming from dude. I really do. There was a reason I went with "As AHLG" on Cheese's A/RE when this issue came up. But there are unfortunately some downsides to being inactive that can impact the position. It is potentially a problem. -MHSstaff 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, to a point. But why could he not simply abstain if, in the unlikely event that he comes to an A/VB or Misconduct case, can't understand (despite the entirety of wiki events being recorded), should he simply abstain? If instead he were removed, he wouldn't be adding anything anyway. Furthermore, not many cases really require much attention or discussion, and those that do mostly have to do with people have spats at eachother or overblowing things (meaning doing what this wiki so loves to do). It seems more likely that this potential for problem is in a simply enlarged state from a pinpoint issue that is probably no issue at all. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Against - Inactive for a month, not even reacting to boxy's reminder about his own A/RE on his talk page. And that is before I've started to really look into his contribs, which have similar gaps left, right and center. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch- i am ok with him keeping his sysop powers --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• vouchas hagz. hopefully he will be more active--
  
  bitch 22:10 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Inactive.--
  
  | T | BALLS! | 23:07 26 March 2011(UTC)
• Abstain - This shall turn into a vouch if Red manages to get a least 3 or so contribs in within the time of his Re-evaluation. If not, I shall be looking the other way with an against. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - It's rare enough to get one from me but two in two days? The reasons are simple 1) the argument the inactivity group is putting out there sucks, he doesn't even edit A/VB or A/M to rule on cases and being a little busy for a month isn't a big deal, we've all done it his just happens to have been a bad month. 2) He does everything else that a sysop would ever need powers for and all the while avoiding A/VB and A/M, this is a good thing and if more sysops had the common sense to do so when they were promoted solely for the purpose of moving shit and meeting requests the whole team wouldn't be viewed as representative of the few that are too stupid to figure out they weren't promoted to ban actual contributors(Protip: No one ever is.) --Karek^maps?! 04:38, 27 March 2011 (BST)

  His inactivity issue should be dealt on A/DE, not A/RE :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:05, 27 March 2011 (BST)

• Vouch - As Gnome and Karek. -- Cheese 16:07, 27 March 2011 (BST)
• Abstain - As Axe Hack. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:50, 27 March 2011 (BST)
• Strong Vouch - Aside from inactivity, he has nothing else going against him, and inactivity ONLY matters when it might impact a sysop's performance, which is not the case here. Specifically, if a sysop is inactive, they don't have a basis for understanding the context of drama as it comes up, which impairs their judgment as a result. In the case of RHO though, he sticks to gnome duties and avoids the drama parts, so it's an entirely moot point. Inactivity in no way impacts his judgment or ability to perform his duties, since moving, protecting, and deleting pages are tasks that require no context. Having him around only has upsides, whereas having an inactive sysop around who is involved in drama sections is a recipe for potential problems. —Aichon— 19:23, 27 March 2011 (BST)
• Against - inactive. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:46, 27 March 2011 (BST)

User:Boxy

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

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

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

-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:44 24 March 2011 (BST)

• vouch - -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- 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? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Your lack of reference to injokes of history disappoints me. Greatly. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  ? Can I have a hint? -- 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. -- 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Like I said, it wasn't really all too serious. I don't find the immediate outcry necessary. -- 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.~ _{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. --Karek^maps?! 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. --Rosslessness^{Want 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. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  The rarity of the vouch implies its value. It's nothing to do with our people's opinions. All of which I deeply value. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - Obviously.--
  
  | T | BALLS! | 18:46 24 March 2011(UTC)
• Vouch - This wiki needs more Box--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^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 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)
• Against - I despise people that come after me alphabetically (yes, I despise almost all of you, with AHLG being the notable exception). If it weren't for that single failing, I would approve. —Aichon— 19:31, 27 March 2011 (BST)

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

• 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)