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

There are currently no open Re-Evaluations.

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

The General

• The General (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)

Looks like I'm up for re-evaluation today, so add your opinions below.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just like Revenant below, it looks like you've been pretty inactive. :P --Shortround 11:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's a fair point, though I don't personally believe that activity should be the sole criterion for re-evaluating a sysop.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Okey doke. :) What do you think you bring to the sysop team? --Shortround 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  like if you were around for more than like 30 seconds you would know that the General here runs several bots that does most of his work load for him. he also wrote this guide maybe you should read it --User:Sexualharrison14:34, 30 January 2012 (bst)

  Wow, that actually is helpful. He definitely sounds like an asset to the team. Does his bot run while he's inactive (Not that it really matters because one running of the bot every month or so probably covers all it needs to).--Shortround 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Here is the log for the bot. Lately, it isn't really fair to say that having few edits means a sysop is inactive. There are times when we check the wiki, but there simply isn't much to do. General always chimes in when needed. I get the feeling he lurks a lot and just edits when needed. ~ _{16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)}

  Awesome. In my opinion, the bot alone is reason to keep him on, and if he gives helpful opinions on occasion as well, all the better! :) --Shortround 17:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• abstain - not so doopy, still inactive but at least doesn't dogpile elections and crap on when accused of something D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - Looking at contribs, not as inactive as it seems. I see deletions, moves, bot banning, voting and the like over the last few months. It'd be cool if he were around for more of it. ~ _{14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)}
• Vouch --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch for the general Against on his bot! --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - When you talk about The General's contribs, you also mustn't forget the bot. While his personal edit count could be higher (and should climb the next 8 months), he brings enough tech-savvy to the table to code and run bots, which is a strong asset for an op. Just keep him. -- Spiderzed█ 16:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch Fo sho keep da general. --Krazymouse 01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch somewhat less of an ass than kerek, but just as wiki savvy. follows the rules and applies them when needed.--User:Sexualharrison19:33, 24 January 2012 (bst)
• I have actually seen (or simply noticed) more from his bot than him. Now that I am sure (I wasn't before) that it is his, I say we make the bot a sysop! Kidding aside, I think he should stay. -- †  talk ? f.u. 11:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Re-evaluations

Revenant

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

It is due today, so I am putting it up as long as it is yet the 15th. -- Spiderzed█ 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch - not vouching for Rev means you support zerging, people who pretend to be nazis in shitty online games, and Dracoguard--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Supreme Vouch - certainly one of the best around here User:Generaloberst/s 20:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• against - he so not around lately. he must be getting laid. when he gets dumped by the fat girl that he is chasing after he will come crawling back out of kat's pussy and enlighten us all with topical quotes from other wikis and emoticons. if he wants it. get busy man. i mean VOOCH--User:Sexualharrison23:32, 15 January 2012 (bst)
• Vouch - can I say as per anime? -- 
  •   Timmah!  
  •   Talk  
  03:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• against - when he does manage to hang around he sucks D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question - How many edits per week, for every week, do you plan on making, on average, if we choose to keep you? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - Never did anything that would justify his antics, let alone his constant spurts of prolonged inactivity. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Arguably, I've only been around for a month or two, but I have no idea who this is... :/ --Shortround 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Questions - How often do you actually check into the wiki these days? And are you still interested in doing this? ~ _{14:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)}

  There are sysops that are less active than Revenant. Have those ever got criticized for that? In my eyes Revenant is a pretty good. User:Generaloberst/s 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yes they have but that wasn't criticism, it was a question; one meant for Revanent. Also learn to indent. ~ _{02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)}

  Bwuh how to answer question not addressed to me D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'd say “often enough”, but that's not as full an answer as this question deserves. I tend to look over it more often than I edit, if that helps; if there's nothing that demands my attention, I'll move on to other things and return at a later stage. Can be daily, can be weekly, though usually if something needs attention I'll get a ping somewhere. (For example, I saw this re-evaluation go up, but refrained from commenting until there was something to comment on.)
  I have had a few periods of prolonged absence during the year due to both medical reasons and life events, which I'm not going to elaborate on other than to say that the process of diagnosis and treatment has been proceeding well.
  And yes, I am still interested in doing this, mostly because a) so people can continue to come to me to get things done b) there are still things I want to get done from my to-do list when I first ran for sysop. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Against - Short spurts of activity, followed by long bursts of inactivity, coupled with less than 150 edits in the last six months. Not a good record for a sysop. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch -        19:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - I never really did like his name. And personally just gives me the heeby jeebies whenever I see him on the wiki. That is to say, if I do see a post by him, which is not very common.--Krazymouse 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  Did I happen to kill you and/or your/an allied group at some point? That tends to provoke this sort of reaction. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Of course!! I'm in Cobra! Durrhr.. But to be truthfully honest, I haven't seen you around the wiki lately with my usual wiki lurking skills. I have seen you alot before on the wiki of course since I have played UD for over 3 years, but as of late, I thought you dropped off the planet. Just sorta disappeared. --Krazymouse 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Wait, Cobra? The most I can recall having exchanged with you lot was some snarky words, which is all fun and games! And yes, I tend to drop in and out of visibility, but rest assured, I am always there… lurking… in the dark, waiting to come out… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  like when your a/re is on D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Against - I haven't been here for a large chunk of his term, but, quite a number of people were a bit hesitant to promote him back then (most of the sysop team at the time, for example). Not that he hasn't been helpful, but most of what he's been doing doesn't really need sysop powers, I think. Plus the inactivity. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - I have a great deal of respect for Revenant in both his history with the community and his contributions, however with his activity of late its clear that he currently has too much on his plate to continue operating in his current status as a sysop. I would welcome him back when his schedule and demands on his time lessen however. --Sabanya 10:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - Helps out, would be better if it was less occasional. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  Does activity affect the quality of his edits, or only the quantity? Rhetorical. Less activity means less of a good thing, not the admittance of a bad. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch - As Animesucks.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  20:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against - Too little activity. As we did with Cheese back then in a similar situation, he just ramp up his contribs and re-apply then. -- Spiderzed█ 20:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  That incident was fundamentally retarded. The sysop revolving door really just cheapens the entire process, if not the wiki. Look at how me and Ross handled Axe Hack's demotion request for more on this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Against - Hasn't responded to questions or his talk page. The silence speaks volumes. ~ _{20:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)}

  probably because he is in the process of moving--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  for 2 months? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ah. That sucks. I hate moving. I suppose I can go for a weak against, which is where I was at before asking the above questions. Rev is alright. Other than the goonsig thing and possible meatpuppetry during his crat bid, I don't think he's done anything without the wiki's best interests in mind. He's just never around and I'm not sure he wants this. If he's demoted and wants to come back later, I'd probably vouch for him if he's truly interested. ~ _{18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)}

  I've been flat out, but I'm here now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ok you've sucessfully cojoled me into a vouch. Hopefully we see moar Rev these next 8 mos. ~ _{02:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)}

• Vouch- only because he asked for it on facebook --hagnat 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch- IRL friend of Rev, and can definitely confirm that he is still incredibly interested in the UD community (he talks about it a lot). Can also confirm that absence seems to line up with health/house moving events. --Greatgreen 02:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ohgods, I forgot you play(ed) UD. Also god damn it is hard to wiki on a phone. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question 2 - You didn't know you were up for Re-Evaluation until I poked you in irc a few hours earlier. Why should I vouch for you? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Incorrect; as I said above, I saw this re-evaluation go up, but there was nothing to respond to last I checked (which was why I thanked you for notifying me).
  As for why you should vouch for me? One reason, and one only: because you think I should remain a sysop. If not, don't. Simple. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I approve of that semi-colon there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  And that, grasshopper, is why you are not yet a member of the grammar police. Patience. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree with it on the basis of its stylistic merit, which is crude and boorish. Harmmfph! Super commas ought to be used only with the use of commas in between each semicolon, as those commas may get confused in the list of things. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Nice try, Rev. The only one that's even remotely applicable is the rule for separating independent clauses, but "Incorrect", by itself, is not an independent clause, given that it possesses neither a noun nor a verb. I suppose you could make an argument that "That is" is implied, in which case you'd have both a noun and a verb, but I think that's taking quite a bit of liberty with the language, would be considered slang at best, and dilutes clearly legitimate uses of the oft-misused semi-colon. You should've justified yourself on the basis of "just because" instead. :P —Aichon— 19:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  Revenant is quite clearly a terrible person, and quite probably a monster. I don't think we should trust him (with semicolons, and everything else). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vouch - As long as I've known Rev, he's been reliable to get things done that need to get done. As such, I trust him at his word that he checks often even if his edit count seems low. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - But you have to come back REV! Promise?  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch fully. Great man, always willing to help, is passionate about UD (even if he is on the wrong side) --Cyadora 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Against Mainly just to cancel CyAdora's vote. --Akbar 01:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch His absences tend to end with "I just moved to a new country/continent/planet" or "I was hospitalized for tendachronitis multiplicitis", so that oughtn't count against him. Good at what he does on the wiki, as well. --DT^PK 17:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vouch - I'd rather have an organ grinder like Rev, than a load of click monkeys like thadeous.--Rapture 20:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

With Boxy going both ways, I've decided that the re-evaluation is Successful. There's a difference between inactive and lurking. We kept Swiers in post for absolutely years when he could have technically been dead, and like Axe before him I'd rather have a team including historically sporadic editors, rather than just me, vapor and spiderzed. That being said, if contributions fall even further I'd be more than willing to fire up the truly inactive sysop policy on him. Rev, consider this a warning.

As always I encourage more of you to run for sysop. We need fresh blood. Especially since Grim took all the black pudding away. --Ross^lessness 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Karek - archived as successful

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)