|
|
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| --> | | --> |
|
| |
|
| ===[[User:Rosslessness]]===
| | ''There are currently no open Re-Evaluations.'' |
| | |
| {{bid|Rosslessness}}
| |
| | |
| Regardless of what policy says a combination of crat votes, and other follies, has led to the fact haven't had a re-evaluation since I was promoted, or indeed had my position up for voting for 9 months. With this in mind ,and the fact that I've got two big gaps of inactivity coming up (both 3+weeks), I'm probably not going to rerun for crat next week. So its probably best to get myself re-evaluated. Enjoy. Feel free to ask questions. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| *'''Strong vouch''' - Ross is not just an outstanding contributor to this wiki (as with the Spawning article or the ghost town guide), but also a very active op, and a very, very level-headed crat who kept his cool even with Cornholioo and wasn't afraid to point out to his fellow crat that it's a bit odd to vote on promotion bids. I'd really wish he'd stay as a crat, rather than to announce his withdrawal :( --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 16:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Uber Strong Vouch''' - You're a great sysops and I'll leave the reasoning why for others. Something else: I highly, highly, recommend you stay on as Crat, not just because you're good at it but more importantly there is no good alternative. Boxy, Cheese and Redhawk are not active enough and/or expressed that they don't want the job. That leaves Yonnua and Misanthopy, candidates who are most definitely capable sysops, but (in my opinion) not ready yet for Crat (for various reasons, which most of you can guess). Hell, I think I'll have to protest vote for Vapor. This scenario is likely to happen and it worries me. If you share my thoughts, please be responsible and stay on. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Has yet to use his super-crat/sysop powers to make me a truly random variable for the wiki, but has been very solid otherwise. -[[MHS|<span style="color: Black">'''MHS'''</span>]][[User_Talk:MHSstaff|<span style="color: DarkBlue">'''staff'''</span>]] 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Virtually faultless. Can't really say more. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Strong Vouch''' - I think you're one of the (if not ''the'') strongest sops the wiki has at the moment. There should really be no question about whether you're kept on the team. I don't believe that a few weeks of inactivity should constitute stepping down as 'crat. So if that is your only reason for considering stepping down for a while, I would urge you to reconsider. {{User:Vapor/sig}} 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''VOUCHARINO''' - I'd buy an action figure of him if one existed.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Question''' - What area of the wiki do you think needs the most work at the moment?--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *:'''Answer''' [[Defile]] needs its own page, and the stats on the new [[Tangling Grasp]] rates in [[Dark]]s need investigating properly. Basically, Mis' [[Zombie Skills]] revamp needs some help.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *::'''Question 2''': If we ask ''reeeeally nicely'', will you stay on as crat?--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *:::Who knows. If I do run It will be with the publicly advertised fact that I'll be massively lazy. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *::::Well, you have my '''Vouch''', and potentially my vote if you run.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Nothing needs saying here.--{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Ross is probably the most capable sysop here. --[[User:Armpit Odor|<span style="color:red"><sup>A</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>R</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>D</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>M</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>O</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>P</sup><span style="color:green"><sub>R</sub><span style="color:red"><sup>I</sup><span style="color:green"><sub> ! </sub><span style="color:red"><sup>T</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>]] 22:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Jealous''' - Of how everyone adores you (consider this a vouch for being awesome). {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *:I'd brownnose you too if you stayed on as a sysops >:(--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Ross is secretly a badass, I'm calling it. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *See above vouches. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!''' errr vouch. the cunt is just too good. i hate em!----[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">sexualharrison</span>]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] ¯\([[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]])/¯ 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - just piling on, nothing to see here. {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 09:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' -- [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Great guy from what I remember. Helpful, decent, friendly, yada yada yada. --[[User:TheBardofAwesome|TheBardofAwesome]] 10:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' - Yes dude --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *Aye, 'spose so. He's not broken anything too major recently. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| *'''Vouch''' s'all good! --[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 14:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| After consulting with DDR, we've decided to cycle your bid as '''successful'''. You are a very good operator, don't go changing now. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :I'm just glad it wasn't a vote. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed== | | ==Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed== |
| Line 51: |
Line 18: |
| ''There have been no recent re-evaluations'' | | ''There have been no recent re-evaluations'' |
| --> | | --> |
| | |
| | ===[[User:Rosslessness]]=== |
| | Archived as '''successful''' [[UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations/Rosslessness|here]]. --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ===[[User:Yonnua Koponen]]=== | | ===[[User:Yonnua Koponen]]=== |
Template:Moderationnav
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
There are currently no open Re-Evaluations.
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
Recent Re-evaluations
Archived as successful here. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Archived as successful here. -- LEMON #1 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Archived Evaluations
Total Sysops: 4 (excluding Kevan, LeakyBocks and Urbandead)
Last updated at: 03:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
