UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

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

Aichon

Aichon (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)

A few days early, but I figured I'd go ahead and kick it off so that it didn't fall across Thanksgiving for those of us in America. You guys know the drill. Criticism of any form is welcome. Constructive criticism is appreciated. —Aich on— 04:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Vouch - You're the best, around. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing's ever gonna keep you down. 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
~~Vouch~~ - You have a pulse. --Alice Gravesend (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch Sic semper tyrannis --_K 04:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If I turned you inside-out, where would I find your kidneys? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Loosely connected to my urinary tract, I'd imagine. Or, if that's inside out as well, then I'd imagine they might both be on the floor, right next to the digested lunch you decided to emit after seeing the sight of a person who had been turned inside out. —Aich on— 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I see. Fair enough. So not smeared around your backside as a new, kidney-derived epithelium/skin? *writes down some notes* Well this must mean you're a splitter. (Although maybe the kidneys are lumped on the floor (and lumped with the urinary tract) and in that case this is clear lumping behaviour.) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Against not ross.--User:Sexualharrison06:35, 18 November 2014
What can I do to address these perfectly valid and rational concerns of yours? Is there something I can do differently? —Aich on— 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Be Ross? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch - -- Linkthewindow Talk 10:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouché - Unlike me he still checks the place -- Spiderzed ▋ 19:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch Not Harrison. --Ross less ne s s 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch Vouching forever. -- 08:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch Just confused on how to say his name....is it akorn? akon? acheache? WTF? but a i thik hes a great guy overall--Payne Train^(FU) 16:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
All of my userpages have a pronunciation guide at the top, and my user page puts the pronunciation in more familiar terms at the very end of the Extended Background section. —Aich on— 17:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Against Jesus.--Alice Gravesend (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you against Jesus? :P —Aich on— 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who pronounces it H-on? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That's how I've always heard it in my head.--Alice Gravesend (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's icon. I believe he basically said that once, or I imagined it. Either way, I call him icon. --_K 01:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Make sure you enunciate correctly as well. Super important. Otherwise it changes from "Icon" to "I con" if you switch the emphasis from the first to second syllable, which is not what I'm going for at all. I'm also happy to provide a spelling in Japanese (katakana, of course) for anyone requiring one. Not sure if the wiki supports Japanese though... —Aich on— 04:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Vor vhat itz vorth, I have alvayz pronounzet it as a German vord. Eye-chon, with ch as in Loch in Scottish pronounciation. -- Spiderzed ▋ 13:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Voucheroo Ain't no one touching Teflon Chon.-- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Shhh, they don't know about that here! —Aich on— 04:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch Love you Aichon!!! Also, as astutely observed before, you do indeed have a pulse. Hehe. Izumi Orimoto (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Vouch That 2010 Misconduct cases is a bit troubling, but I'll let it slide. ~ _{16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}
We really need more 3 hour 17 minute bans around here. —Aich on— 20:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you taking recommendations? Because that Radical Whig's leash sure could use some shortening. ~ _{19:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)}
Seriously. I once heard that he...well, maybe I shouldn't share that here... —Aich on— 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Vouch like there is another option --23:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Conndraka^{TAZM CFT}
You're welcome to offer some criticism, even if you choose to vouch. I'm always eager to get some honest feedback. —Aich on— 00:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)