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

Red Hawk One

As of this minute, Red’s due his first re-evaluation.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:11, 15 July 2010 (BST)

• Strong Vouch – Red Hawk has proven time and again that he’s a worthy and integral system operator. He has managed to avoid drama almost completely, as per his promotion promise, and in the few instances where he’s felt compelled to get involved, he has been professional and helpful at all times, as seen in his recent message to Jerrel. He knows the ins and outs of the wiki’s admin pages without any question, and I have faith that he will continue to be an excellent addition to the team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:11, 15 July 2010 (BST)

  He actually never promised that, as I recall, despite Iscariot's claims to the contrary. —Aichon— 01:11, 15 July 2010 (BST)

  It's true, he never actually promised that, it was me who emphasised that as the crat processing the nomination. --

   

   

   

   

  03:43, 15 July 2010 (BST)

  Well, it's what he's always said anyway, and I know he sincerely tries, because we've had conversations on the DA forums about it before. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:35, 15 July 2010 (BST)

• Vouch – Red HAwk is awsome, I saw him ingame as well. But on the wiki he shows he is defiantly suited to doing what he does and that shouldn't change--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:18, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch - RHO has never set a foot wrong in his tenure, and also saved a bunch of disabled orphans from a tire fire in Da Nang. ^{Citation needed?} 00:20, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 00:22, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Strong Vouch - He's a stable and excellent sysop that avoids the drama and simply helps with all of the janitorial duties. He's quick with protections, bot bannings, etc. While it might be nice to have extra input for A/VB and A/M, any help at all is welcome. —Aichon— 01:11, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:20, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch - Activity: Moderate - Experience: Moderate/High - Flammability: Low - Focus: Geography --VVV ^RPMBG 02:52, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Strong Vouch - A great user, has lived up to practically all I hoped he would when I cycled his promotion bid. --
   
   
   
   
• Vouch - He didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:56, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Didn't even know he was an op xoxo 08:34, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch Sure, don't fix what ain't broken. --Thadeous Oakley 11:09, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch No explanation needed by now. Technical Pacifist 11:25, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Strong Vouch - While he doesn't involve himself in the drama sections of the wiki, his input in janitorial areas makes him an excellent op.-- Adward  15:03, 15 July 2010 (BST)
• Vouch - He's fine. Asheets 15:43, 15 July 2010 (BST)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

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)