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:Yonnua Koponen

Yonnua Koponen (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I'm opening my re-evaluation six days early, so that it doesn't conflict with my exams this January.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Vouch - He's one of the more active sysops, and has never significantly abused his power. There's no reason to not keep him. --VVV ^RPMBG 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - If he weren't a social-democrat this would have been a Strong Vouch. Great sysop most of the time. I get along very well with him too. Not that that's really a criteria for sysopship, but f*ck that, I wouldn't be human without some bias. --Thadeous Oakley ^Talk 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - It should be obvious that he's capable to anyone who's been watching admin stuff around here. Some of his recent lines of thought in various controversial discussions seem a bit out of left field to me (i.e. I disagree with them and have great difficulty recognizing the merit of his side), but that's no reason to lobby against him. And though, at least to me, he's seemed a bit argumentative of late, he's still great at the job, does excellent work on the janitorial duties, and has done a good job of being consistent in application of the rules. All-in-all, while I don't agree with everything he says or the way he handles each issue, he contributes a unique, reasoned, and invaluable perspective to the sysop team and is well worth keeping on for another term. —Aichon— 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Keep up the good work, bro. ~ 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Yon is certainly one of the recently more active ops, who handles a lot of the day-to-day janitorial stuff as A/SD and tackles badly filed stuff pro-actively, as recently the Suburb BIC pages. However, what makes me more than a bit wary is his loose stance on privacy and data integrity, as seen here, here and most recently here. It doesn't hurt the wiki much if the janitorial stuff gets a bit slowly handled, but the damage that unwanted dox can do is irreparable. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch as Aichon, and spiderzed. i still think he as the potential to improve. so lets give him the time to do do. he is at least learning from his mistakes.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 18:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch Does a great job with the daily chores but still not sure i trust his judgment on sensitive stuff. Perfect example of why some things should be separated from the normal sysop role... That said I mostly only lurk these days and it seems churlish to hold so far fairly minor infringements against him. --Honestmistake 03:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - Asheets 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch - --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• He's got my vouch. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Vouch - A little disappointed to see Yonnua wait for the rest of team to rule rather then ruling himself on the last VB case. He should have the experience by now to take the lead rather than follow in footsteps. That said, except for the whole checkuser fiasco, Yonnua's done a solid job far. -MHSstaff 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was waiting to see if anybody would turn up and over-rule the stupid precedent that allows you to put jokes on arbies. (Like Cheese did, but nobody else did).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  You basically just did it again with a pretty clear 3edit vandal. Just saying. -MHSstaff 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• As Aichon, pretty much. Yon does a crapload of janitorial stuff, competent and reasonably sane editor, etc, etc. The recent issue with checkuser gave me pause, but nothing worth demoting him over. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - Yon, admittedly, does a lot of work here on the Wiki. That said, I have an issue with the unnecessary outing of my alt. Granted, it was no great secret but Yon didn't know that and I am not convinced that he understands what he did wrong to this day. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the Cunt - We've had our sweet sweet love-ins. We've laughed. We've cried. We've birthed babes into this harsh and inhospitable climate. We drank. We ate. We woke up hungover in the cold light of morning. We've argued about the etymology of the word "aluminum" (brits suck it and learn about my main home-slice Humphrey Davey OLD SHCOOOOOOL!!!!). Scotland FTW!!!! Main point, this fucking gangster would shank your mother and edit her drunken rants for grammatical correctness. This dude, my main motherfucking homie style G roughneck hardstyle friend would straight up arbitrate your ass if you came at him cross. Dig what I'm saying/ Serioyusly though I like Yonn. Hey man you got shit done bro. Keep it real my bro. Straigt up vouch and shit.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Against - is against a time and true tradition of the wiki: The Meatpuppet--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Vouch -- I throw Yonnua my vouch. --Met Fan ^F 23:51, 7 January 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

• 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)