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.

Recent Re-evaluations

User:Conndraka

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. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:20, 25 August 2009 (BST)

• Against. Strongly. Note, I don't have anything against you personally but your inactivity cannot do. I see nothing from you that needs specific sysops status.--Thadeous Oakley 17:24, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  Thad, would you rather have a sporadically active fair-minded person or an overly active unfair one?-- BULLDOGC6 23:11, 29 August 2009 (BST)

  Considering Conn is the worst of both of those, it shouldn't matter. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:51, 30 August 2009 (BST)

  And you aren't? Come on, Goon. -- BULLDOGC6 16:07, 30 August 2009 (BST)

  DDR is not a goon. As far as I know the only goon sysops are Nubis and myself. Cyberbob  Talk  16:14, 30 August 2009 (BST)

  Waat? 2 goon Pysops!? BIAS!!! UNFAIR!! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:56, 30 August 2009 (BST)

• Abstain From what I've seen, you're a very good sysop, but your only edit for ten days before this was to pull yourself out of the running for crat. As such, I won't give a full vouch.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:08, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  Ha. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:14, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Ha?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:59, 30 August 2009 (BST)

• Question - You seem to spend a lot of time Covering Cyberbob's Butt. Would you like to rebuff this claim?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 22:21, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  You're unreal. Cyberbob  Talk  23:38, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  Obsess much?--– Nubis ^NWO 13:16, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  My god... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:29, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Well occasionally, Bob forgets to put on pants, and when that happens...Seriously Bob is onother opinionated person who although might not express himself well, often has valid points buried in the...fog. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:26, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Thanks Conn, I will give this criticism the thought it so well-deserves - just because it's you. Cyberbob  Talk  14:30, 27 August 2009 (BST)

• Abstain. - As Yonnua. --Haliman - Talk 22:41, 25 August 2009 (BST)
• Abstain Cyberbob  Talk  23:38, 25 August 2009 (BST)
• Question same one I asked the General really.... roughly how many of your recent edits have required sysop powers? --Honestmistake 00:25, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - drama doesn't just happen to stick conn. --xoxo 01:24, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Strongly Against - imnsho Conndraka is the worst sysop of the crew by a mile. No one else even comes close. (Yes, that says a lot, when you take into my history with certain other sysops. But at least those sysops contribute to the wiki...) When Conn isn't simply inactive and contributing pretty much nothing to the community (which is most of the time), he's biased, self-serving and a drama-monger who plays fast and loose with the letter and especially the spirit of policy. In no way a user to be "specially trusted".... --WanYao 02:55, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Strongly Against - Conndraka is everything wrong with a user, lest a sysop. He doesn't venture in any part of the wiki besides drama nests (check his contributions) and his decisions in said drama nests are nothing less than utter shit. Mention this to him, or any other sort of criticism, and Conndraka will demonstrate his trademark excuse of "IRL has me busy because I'm making a life for myself", which is absolutely fine, but isn't an excuse on a wiki dedicated to a video game. Something like this instance demonstrates exactly what I mean, and it's been going for so long it isn't even funny. Otherwise as Wan. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:14, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Yes, please link to the goons' year old opinion of the DHPD as a valid critique of his performance. They are clearly the most unbiased source on the wiki in that regard.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:14, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  There was more of a focus on the idiotic and typical response that Conndraka had to the whole affair. And I could have delved into the archives and found several links that demonstrated my examples about my problems with Conn, but at this point I don't think it necessary. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:28, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Conndraka displayed such a complete lack of objectivity when dealing with the DHPD/Dead conflict.... That's something that can't -- and shouldn't -- be easily forgotten or dismissed by those who were there and who remember. And since then, imnsho he's displayed the same kind of behavior pretty consistently, just on a smaller scale and in a more piecemeal manner. --WanYao 23:37, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  Everyone took sides in that battle. There was not a single sysop that didn't hate the goons or threaten them. If he had been completely objective towards the one group of insane trolls that came here to destroy everything I would have been pissed as a normal user. You want the people responsible for taking care of the place to CARE about the place. That's what makes them active. If someone came into your house and started trashing things would you be objective to them since they are guests? --– Nubis ^NWO 23:26, 28 August 2009 (BST)

• Against - Inactivity. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:37, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - Above covered most of it.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:46, 26 August 2009 (BST)
  • Abstain - Don't give a flying fuck. This system is about as useful as I thought it would be.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:50, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Against as giles --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 06:19, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - I've probably had the most antagonistic relationship with Conn out of all the sysops. However, I respect his opinion. He offers experience that not a lot of users on here has. He makes decisions and from what I recall he stands by his convictions. While he may not contribute as much as others would like to the "grunt work" of the wiki he will step in to a heated situation. I'd rather have a sysop that gets involved with A/M and A/VB over Protections and Moves because those pages are the ones that need strong opinions. You can't have a sysop that wants to leave "everything to a community vote" like we've had in the past. He offers a nice "Devil's Advocate" side to the discussion. Besides, if the Admin team was "perfect" who would be the "bad guys" that everyone would rally against? I think Conn's sysop status should only be "questioned" when he fails to meet the required edit amounts and not because people don't like him. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:14, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  a) It's not about doing "grunt work", it's about doing any work. b) He doesn't participate in A/M and A/VB because it's his responsibility, he "steps into heated situations" because he simply enjoys having a say which holds some power. c) It isn't that he is a good guy, or a bad guy, or a devil's advocate, or 'imperfect', it's that he's a goddamn idiot. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:28, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Regarding c): that's just like, your opinion, man. Cyberbob  Talk  13:49, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  Fair enough, dude. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:58, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  All of these are just opinions. That's the problem with this system.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:03, 26 August 2009 (BST)

  "Besides, if the Admin team was "perfect" who would be the "bad guys" that everyone would rally against?" - Rest assured with Conn gone it still won't be perfect. Oh, and your hilarious sarcasm totally undermines the somewhat valid statements you'd made. You do realise you're worse than you think wan is? --xoxo 04:23, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  I clearly thought wan was bad *rollseyes*... Which is why I flamed the piss out of people that opposed him on my nomination of him for sysop. Yes, all part of my brilliant plan. And if it wasn't for his attitude on his recent policy I wouldn't have any problems with him. (outside of that discussion I still don't)--– Nubis ^NWO 14:27, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  How was my attitude on my recent policy different from what you describe of Conn: "He makes decisions and from what I recall he stands by his convictions." I mean, since my name is being tossed around so much here... I think it's a valid question. --WanYao 23:31, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  It is. Your policy was a reactionary drama bomb that wouldn't solve anything and you refused to even consider changing anything based on input. Conn can compromise and see other people's sides of issues and tries to find a balance that works. I'm not saying he's perfect. That's far from the case here. I'm saying AGAIN that his position shouldn't be on the line because people don't like him. Bottom line. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:26, 28 August 2009 (BST)

  I remember no instance that ever being the case. Evidence of Conn being able to change his first opinion at all, please. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:43, 28 August 2009 (BST)

  There you go twisting the facts. People wanted to amend my policy to turn it into something effectively contrary to its intent. And I was supposed to just accept that, say, "Ok.. I'll support something that completely neuters my original intent"? To expect me to accept that -- especially in the face of the outright hostility and petty personal attack the policy generated -- is totally unreasonable. Not the other way around. And, my policy actually did serve a purpose, it did solve something: it helped to open the door for the discussion and eventual passing of this the very policy by means of which we're having this sysop review at this very moment. Maybe you don't like these reviews at all, but, like it or lump it my "reactionary drama bomb" had something to do with us being here right now, having the conversation.And back to Conn... I've actually rarely seen him compromise. Rather, I have often seen him take unreasonable positions based solely on group/clique affiliations, and stick by them through thick and thin, no matter what anyone else says. The whole DHPD thing is the perfect example. He didn't even TRY to be objective... nor was he acting in the interests of the wiki... just in the interests of his old DHPD buddies. Even Marty Banks, when he went a little frothing at the mouth from being harassed so viciously, he was more objective and reasonable than Conndraka. --WanYao 00:43, 29 August 2009 (BST)

  Evedence of changing an opinion...hmmmm. I used to support Wan for Sysop. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:54, 29 August 2009 (BST)

  Dhur Hur hur...--Thadeous Oakley 14:04, 30 August 2009 (BST)

  small evidence/example of objectivity: i have always supported nubis's sysopship. in spite of everything that's gone down, that has been said, i have no reason to change that position. on the other hand, i have never been a supporter of conndraka's sysop status and have been given no reason to change that position. --WanYao 14:24, 30 August 2009 (BST)

• Vouch What nubis said --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 15:00, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Against Long bouts of inactivity. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:50, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - If there weren't drama on the UD Wiki, I dont think Conndraka would be involved at all, but there's plenty of that to go around, and I actually see him around on the administration pages, to participate rather than doing his required minimum to bump his date for demotion for inactivity.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:18, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - one of the few sysops with the balls to help take down Grim, when he was bullying the rest of the wiki into submission. Yes, that was drama, but it was drama that needed the sysops to get involved, and many of them were conspicuous by their absence, or by having their bottoms glued to the fence. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:44, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - as per Nubis and Funt --Sanpedro 02:42, 27 August 2009 (BST)
• Abstain - I don't really feel like I know enough about Conn to make a decision about his eligibility, but for some reason feel like posting a call (or lack of one) here. Maybe it's to set an example for inexperienced users, or perhaps I just like voting? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:51, 27 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - As DDR. There's nothing I can add that he's not already said. -- Cheese 22:53, 27 August 2009 (BST)
• Against for supporting bob in his anti boob campaign. for shame.----Sexualharrison 05:58, 28 August 2009 (BST)

  look at how lazy you are Cyberbob  Talk  06:07, 28 August 2009 (BST)

  no shit sherlock----Sexualharrison 04:25, 31 August 2009 (BST)

• He is the lowest common demoderator. From the Desk Sergent fiasco and Ken irons, to the complete The Dead redirect mess, he has shown a consistent lack of common sense when dealing with conflicts of interest, especially when using his sysop abilities -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:37 29 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - if only to leave some sort of voice of the DHPD on the wiki.-- BULLDOGC6 03:59, 29 August 2009 (BST)

  This isn't a discussion about removing him from the wiki, and it's not appropriate to put users into a sysop position to give any group a "voice". On the contrary, they should be picked based on their ability to put aside their group allegiances when dealing with admin decisions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:37 30 August 2009 (BST)

• Vouch - Conndraka is a good person, sure he has made some mistakes (Includeing me recently getting kicked out of DHPD mind you) But all disisions he makes are what he beleves is for the good of everyone else (and 90% of the time that is true) --Ltpotter 17:26, 29 August 2009 (BST)

  Conndraka didn't kick you out of the department. If anything, I did. I caught you zerging via screenshot evidence and i caught you revealing DHPD plans to other groups. -- BULLDOGC6 23:05, 29 August 2009 (BST)

• 'Against - As above. --Papa Moloch 23:30, 29 August 2009 (BST)
• Abstain - Ehhh. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:56, 30 August 2009 (BST)
• Abstain - Who? --MTRemick ^{T | C | Fey | NBC} 21:32, 30 August 2009 (BST)
• Meh - Against, above n stuff--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:33, 31 August 2009 (BST)
• Against Im like so sorry..But if your going to be a sysop for the community you Must be active. What good is having the sysop status if your not active? I respect your opinions..But we cant have inactive sysops :( --Suff-TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 22:26, 31 August 2009 (BST)
• Against I'm not sorry. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:33, 1 September 2009 (BST)

The discussion for this re-evaluation bid is now over. All we need now is some crat input. -- Cheese 18:35, 2 September 2009 (BST)

A quick peek learns us Conn is likely to be first one to get demoted. Questionable honor.--Thadeous Oakley 18:56, 2 September 2009 (BST)

User:The General

As the oldest sysop, General is first for re-evaluation as per 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. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 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.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 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.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:04, 20 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - --Thadeous Oakley 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. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 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. Cyberbob  Talk  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. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:57, 21 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - Punk, ska, comedy. He's old enough to know better, and he generally seems to, so yeah. -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. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:42, 21 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - it would be sad to see another old dinosaur go. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:51, 21 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch --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. --WanYao 16:04, 23 August 2009 (BST)

• Abstain - Honestly, I don't know at this point.--SirArgo ^Talk 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. --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. --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? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:49, 21 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - He's good at what he does, so we should let him continue. --Haliman - Talk 23:30, 21 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - I don't believe him active enough anymore.-- Adward  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.--CyberRead240 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. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 14:58, 22 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - Seems good enough to stay Ephraim 00:18, 24 August 2009 (BST)
• Against - Who? If I don't even know who you are, probably shouldn't be a sysop.--
  
  | T | BALLS! | 19:55 24 August 2009(BST)
• 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 Ent.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 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. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 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! --Honestmistake 22:55, 24 August 2009 (BST)

  Just to note: that template on my userpage was wrong, it was meant to say I'd be back on the 25th of August and I'm not sure why I said June! I'm now back home so my activity will increase.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:59, 25 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. --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.--xoxo 01:00, 25 August 2009 (BST)

  what you mean like every "community" vote ever??? why do you hate democracy???????? Cyberbob  Talk  00:41, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  hmmmm not bad. although it's not really a fair comparison until misconduct votes are opened to every user. I'm more than okay with the general being allowed to keep his status as a community member and thus he can continue to meatpuppet away policy votes and suggestions to his hearts content.--xoxo 04:16, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  please provide evidence that the general meatpuppets policy votes and suggestions thanks in advance. Cyberbob  Talk  14:31, 27 August 2009 (BST)

  mildly amusing at best.--xoxo 08:26, 2 September 2009 (BST)

  yeah it's not too amusing to be exposed as a liar is it Cyberbob  Talk  08:42, 2 September 2009 (BST)

  you dont actually want me to rebut you because you know how flawed your argument is, hence i'm not going to bother. Say what you like about that and please, continue exposing me.--xoxo 10:57, 2 September 2009 (BST)

• Abstain - Was inactive until his opinion was called for (or not), but then continued to be active. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:37, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Vouch - From what i have seen he seems to be good a what he does. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 13:24, 26 August 2009 (BST)
• Abstain I have no clue, considering his record. He's been inactive and then he comes back and does good work for a while. Frankly, I don't know. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:51, 26 August 2009 (BST)

The community discussion is now closed and this Re-Evaluation now awaits a decision from the 'crats. -- Cheese 16:01, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Contacting SA now. Since he's been a bit inactive lately, I'll process this on Monday/Tuesday if I don't hear back from him by then. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:52, 28 August 2009 (BST)

The General has had a history of inactivity, but he does a good job when he's around. Because extra (good) sysops harm nobody, his reevaluation is successful. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:03, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Re-Evaluations Scheduling

15:09, 19 August 2009 (BST)

• Total Sysops: 12 (excluding Kevan and Urbandead)

For the most accurate time of promotion, see the user rights log.

User	Last Promotion	Evaluation Due
Linkthewindow (Contribs)	2009-05-15	2010-01-15
Suicidalangel (Contribs)	2009-08-15	2010-04-15
Boxy (Contribs)	2007-02-03	DUE
Conndraka (Contribs)	2006-05-09	DUE
Cyberbob240 (Contribs)	2009-06-21	2010-02-21
DanceDanceRevolution (Contribs)	2009-05-27	2010-01-27
Daranz (Contribs)	2005-09-14	DUE
Krazy Monkey (Contribs)	2008-02-27	DUE
Nubis (Contribs)	2009-02-21	2009-10-21
Swiers (Contribs)	2007-08-23	DUE
The General (Contribs)	2006-04-13	DUE
The Rooster (Contribs)	2009-06-12	2010-02-12