UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations
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:The General
An old reminder on my phone just woke me up to tell me that it's time already for the second batch of A/RE bids, and General is first. I'll give him a heads up on his talk page. --
05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - Nothing personal to General but nothing he could say would make me support him as an op, when I was an op I scowled as he passed his first A/RE bid by doing two weeks of work before said bid (the only work I've really seen him do in 12 months prior) and, well, it's the only work I've seen him do since. He was given the benefit of the doubt by the community though, but I feel he hasn't satisfied any requirements to say he would make good on his opportunity to make good as a sysop. -- 05:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against lolwut WHO?
05:19, 2 May 2010 (BST) - Against Same as above really,... I haven't really seen him do anything. -Poodle of DoomM!
T 05:21, 2 May 2010 (BST) - Against - I saw him around a few months ago. I was surprised when I saw him. I wasn't surprised when I saw him making clerical errors that had to be corrected by other sysops. He's not around, and "Sysop" is not meant to be a status symbol, which is all he seems to be using it for. He's a nice enough guy, but a sysop he is not. —Aichon— 06:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- against - as per mis. -- 06:53, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - Inactivity is bad, k.--
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 11:24, 2 May 2010 (BST) - Against - Pow, pow, pow.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:31, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - He managed to sneak through the first A/RE bid, but there's no way he should get through this one. We need active sysops.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:47, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - A no-brainer.--
Thadeous Oakley 12:44, 2 May 2010 (BST) - Against as above. plus it's been so long since i've had to deal with him i forgot what a fucking asshole he is to begin with. i would vouch for bob before vouching for this assclown ever again. now to return to doing nothing... unless another vote shows up in the news.----sexualharrison
¯\(
)/¯ 14:06, 2 May 2010 (BST) - Against, due to the obvious inactivity. G F J 14:26, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - what the fuck ddr puts wiki shit on his phone? Cyberbob Talk 15:23, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - The General was an excellent wiki contributor and sysop. However, he is not nearly active enough to be considered for the position any more.-- Adward 16:45, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- no sorry he was always a literal 13 year old mouth breather Cyberbob Talk 17:35, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Hmm...I seem to recall hearing you say something else not too long ago. "Vouch...I don't think the sysop team could do without him." :P —Aichon— 20:22, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- bitch got owned -- Adward 22:28, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- if he'd been demoted then there would've been like 2 or 3 sysops left (including crats). BITCH GOT OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cyberbob Talk 03:50, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- u mad? (ps. that pretty much explains nothing nice excuse) -- 04:24, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- actually it does as bad decisions on misconduct cases and vb ones where a sysop can't rule due to involvement is better than physically not being able to make any decision at all due to low numbers :) Cyberbob Talk 04:27, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- So you COULD imagine what the sysop team would be like without him then (we had that anyway and he WAS here, there were 9 ops around at the time) :) -- 04:33, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- so then imagine how much worse it would have been with 8! wow that would have been pretty bad Cyberbob Talk 04:55, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- Stop making things up to look less wrong, it's quite obvious you accidentally made a u-turn, like it's that much of a big deal.--Thadeous Oakley 16:58, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- Stop making things up to look less wrong, it's quite obvious you accidentally made a u-turn, like it's that much of a big deal.--
- so then imagine how much worse it would have been with 8! wow that would have been pretty bad Cyberbob Talk 04:55, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- So you COULD imagine what the sysop team would be like without him then (we had that anyway and he WAS here, there were 9 ops around at the time) :) -- 04:33, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- actually it does as bad decisions on misconduct cases and vb ones where a sysop can't rule due to involvement is better than physically not being able to make any decision at all due to low numbers :) Cyberbob Talk 04:27, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- u mad? (ps. that pretty much explains nothing nice excuse) -- 04:24, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- Hmm...I seem to recall hearing you say something else not too long ago. "Vouch...I don't think the sysop team could do without him." :P —Aichon— 20:22, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- no sorry he was always a literal 13 year old mouth breather Cyberbob Talk 17:35, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - inactivity bandwagon. --AORDMOPRI ! T 20:24, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - I think I've heard of him somewhere. --VVV RPMBG 21:21, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - As above. --Maverick Talk - OBR
404 12:15, 3 May 2010 (BST) - Against - He's fallen far below the activity threshold required of sysops. I don't want sysops to be constantly stalking the RC, but I do expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of current wiki policy and the community. Extra good sysops harm nobody, but sysops with good intentions but poor knowledge of the current wiki can be quite harmful. That said, General always did a good job when he was here. Linkthewindow Talk 14:21, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- Against -- To be honest, I've never once run into The General in the last 3.5 years. Asheets 19:51, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - It's time, ol' buddy... there is nothing more in here for us old dinosaus. Just let the ties be cut and join me in the limbo --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 04:40, 4 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - Due to inactivity -- Q. JuliusTBH 02:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - We need active sysops, k? --Jack Kolt Talk|Chars 03:39, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- Against - WAY past time this turd was flushed.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:01 6 May 2010(UTC)
- Against - As above. -- Cheese 16:04, 8 May 2010 (BST)
It's pretty obvious which way this is going to go and, to be honest, it is time. I've requested demotion anyway so this can be wrapped up a few hours early if it is wished. I've always said that additional sysops is a good thing and it shouldn't matter how active they are, but I took this rather a step too far. I may come back at a later date but, for now at least, I'm joining Hagnat as the last of the old dinosaurs to go.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:56, 8 May 2010 (BST)
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
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)
