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

User:Spiderzed

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

Looking how I have already collected a good bit of misconduct cases, I am going to put up my RE early. Like I promised in my promotion bid, I was mostly going to do what I do already on the wiki, just with more buttons, and I think I have achieved that. Apart from the standard stuff like handling A/SD, I was especially active in policy discussion, in the discussion of off-site requests (that sadly remained unresolved), in maintaining Category:Recruitment during Mis' absence, and in keeping Project Funny from going completely belly up.

To get the technicalities out of the way:

1. Yes, I had at least 1 edit in the past 3 months.
2. Yes, I had more than 50 edits since my promotion.
3. Yes, I am willing to continue plagueing the wiki with my special button access.

-- Spiderzed█ 16:05, 23 July 2011 (BST)

• Question What have you learned about being a sop since your promotion? --Rosslessness 16:29, 23 July 2011 (BST)

  1.) You _will_ get drawn into drama, unless you work really hard on staying out of it. 2.) People _will_ try to frame you for misconduct, regardless of how accountable and honourable you think you use your powers. The only way to escape it is to never do anything only a sys-op can do. But where would be the sense in that? 3.) The buttons are a nice-to-have, but not decisive. 90% of your job can be done without it, and 90% of the button use is the dumb "color by numbers" stuff like C7/8 A/SD, cycling suggestions or bot banning. -- Spiderzed█ 17:15, 23 July 2011 (BST)

• Abstain - Yet to make up my mind.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:27, 23 July 2011 (BST)
• Vouch -You can fight like a krogan, run like a leopard, but you'll never be better than commander Shepherd. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 18:36, 23 July 2011 (BST)
• strong vouch pedo, nazi killer, dislikes thad, makes fun of yon. unfair and biased as a good sysop should be. --User:Sexualharrison19:06, 23 July 2011 (bst)
• Vouch The misconduct stuff is pretty standard and almost like a right of passage. Hell you put one of them up yourself for accidentally blocking Seagull instead of a bot. I know you were acting on precedent and that actully speaks well of your character. As for the most recent case, common sense tells me that it was just an honest mistake (and a minor one). You're handling well the responsibility given to you. Don't change too much, maybe think a few things through or ask a second opinion before taking certain actions. ~ _{01:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)}
• Vouch - If you haven't picked up a few misconduct cases during your term as a sysop then you probably haven't done anything. No complaints on anything else you've done so that's a vouch.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:51, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Vouch - Spidezed is a bro. Good and well rounded op. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:26, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Uber-Vouch - this is a no-brainer. He's shown good judgement and rules knowledge, and the fact that he put himself up for misconduct for accidently blocking me speaks volumes for his overall attitude towards sysophood. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 08:39, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Vote for president Vouch - I vouched at his pm bid, and my opinion of him hasn't changed much. -- †  talk ? f.u. 11:35, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Vouch --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 17:04, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Against -- But only because nobody else will vote against Spiderzed and in the interests of a fair and even conflict someone /should/. So consider this more of a vouch than an against, but just named against for the sake of all the vouches. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:40, 24 July 2011 (BST)
• Strong Vouch - But only barely, since he clearly did not take my prior criticism to heart in his original nomination, though he at least had the decency to open a dialog with me over it, since it is a MAJOR issue. Even so, virtually no change has occurred, so it's like he's wallowing in it now. Flaunting it, really, just to bother me. I consider this to be a major issue that puts his entire re-evaluation at risk, and rightfully so. Stop laughing. I'm not kidding. This is serious. Seriously. —Aichon— 00:51, 25 July 2011 (BST)
• Vouch We need janitor-savy sysops like Spiderzed to compensate for lazy fucks like myself. Keep doing the work I'm not, the community thanks you and so do I. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 00:43, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Come your next A/RE, I'm so using this against you. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 23:49, 31 July 2011 (BST)

After a brief consultation we've decided that the re-evaluation has been Successful. Thanks. --Rosslessness 11:30, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Archived here as successful. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:00, 10 July 2011 (BST)

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)