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
Bob Moncrief
- Bob Moncrief (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
Bob is up. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- If Bob stops by and says he still wants it, keep him. No reason to keep him if he isn't around though. Given his lack of activity since Feb, it doesn't look promising. --K 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- As Kirsty. Otherwise, if he does get re-evaluated without swinging by, he'll be up for an automatic inactivity demotion next month anyway. —Aichon— 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hopefully not dead or zombie, but zombie preferred. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- who? Oh Him...Why not ;) --ConndrakaTAZM CFT 04:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Against - he bailed. Hasn't responded to even persistant talk page messaging. Left in the middle of crat term. Just let em go. ~
04:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC) - Has never given me any trouble. An inactive sys op is a good sysop?--P.F. 08:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
Recent Re-evaluations
Boxy
- Boxy (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
Boxy was originally due on March 11, but as a rollback by Kevan was imminent I had held back on it before admin data gets accidentally lost. As the rollback still hasn't happened, I am now proceeding witn it before it gets any more delayed. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's easy to devolve into "boxy rox my sox" comments, but the simple truth is that boxy is one of the best sysops we've ever had on the wiki, and he continues to contribute often enough that he's aware of what's going on and available most of the time when we need him. Keep the guy around. —Aichon— 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all for giving newbies a chance. --K 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
With his successful 'crat election Boxy has been automatically retained. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Aichon
- Aichon (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
In all that excitement with the special character mangling, I had nearly forgotten about this one. Here he is. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, hey, completely forgot that I was due for A/RE. Glad you caught that. Anyway, I'm still around, still contributing, and still active in sysop-type stuff. If you're looking for me to promise that I'll be even more active, that won't be happening. If anything, I'll only get less active with time. If you have questions, however, I'll try to give an answer to each of them. —Aichon— 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Vouch. It rhymes with "ouch", which is what I say when an Acorn falls on my head. ~ 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Vouch I sometimes think he's the only one the zombies haven't eaten! --Honestmistake 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Burn him with fire. Fucker owes me a reacharound.
04:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- My only argument here is that Aichon is too good at this -- yes, I am biased because I like his UserScripts, maybe a little too much. I encourage rebuttals against my consclusion, i.e.: Waffles! --wez 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- and you are an idiot that no one listens to. KEEEP--User:Sexualharrison19:57, 3 March 2014
- Pickle pants. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
After a heated debate between myself and a sock puppet created to look like an effigy of Bob Moncrief, we have come to the conclusion to retain Aichon. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
For older re-evaluations, please consult the sysop archives and the relevant category.
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)
