Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Re-Evaluations Being Discussed: keep all)
Line 7: Line 7:
Comments will close on '''July 18th, 2017'''. Current bureaucrats [[User:Bob Moncrief|Bob]] and [[User:Rosslessness|Ross]] are not up for re-evaluation.
Comments closed on '''July 18th, 2017'''. Current bureaucrats [[User:Bob Moncrief|Bob]] and [[User:Rosslessness|Ross]] are not up for re-evaluation.
After a discussion with Ross, we have decided that all the eligible sysops have '''succeeded''' in re-evaluation. Thanks everybody! {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
===A Helpful Little Gnome===
===A Helpful Little Gnome===

Revision as of 00:54, 19 July 2017

Administration Services

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

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

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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 Being Discussed

Comments closed on July 18th, 2017. Current bureaucrats Bob and Ross are not up for re-evaluation.

After a discussion with Ross, we have decided that all the eligible sysops have succeeded in re-evaluation. Thanks everybody! Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A Helpful Little Gnome


As mentioned in my userspace announcement, I'll be away for a few weeks starting the day after tomorrow. If you have any questions for me, you had better ask them today, otherwise I won't have time to notice and respond before I head out. Aichon 15:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • (If you end up reading this in time): Do you have a best estimate on when, or if, UD might reach an active population of zero? --  AHLGTG 00:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    If left to itself, popularity tends to have rather long tail. As such, reaching true 0 would take quite some time. In the case of UD, were it left to itself, I wouldn't be shocked if I was told 30 years from now that people were still playing. That said, I doubt Kevan would leave it to itself, simply on account of the fact that running the game costs a non-zero amount of money, whereas his revenue from the game is likely to hit 0 in the not-too-distant future. I'd wager the costs are relatively negligible, especially as the game shrinks, and Kevan strikes me as the sort who would try to keep it running as long as possible, perhaps even being willing to lose a bit of money on it each month, but I'd guess we're already past the halfway point of the game's life. I'd give it another 10 years or so. Aichon 15:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If you could only eat one particular type of cake for the rest of your life, what would it be? -- Cheese 18:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I love rich desserts, so if we're allowing anything with "cake" in the name, I'd go for cheesecake in a heartbeat. If we're only allowing the more typical varieties of cakes, at the moment, I'd probably take the mini bundt cakes from Nothing Bundt Cake (probably their carrot cake one, if I had to narrow it down to just one that I was allowed to eat from then on; though on a one-off basis, I'd probably pick red velvet). I don't know what they put in those things, but dang, they're good. Aichon 19:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For - I wouldn't have the chance to sneak him onto the crat election if he were to be demoted. -- Spiderzed 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Boxy (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
  • Vouch or whatever - I'm fairly certain Boxy not being a Sysop is a sign of the apocalypse. --Cheese 18:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For - Boxy may not be particularly active, but, as AHLG, he's around when we need him, which is about what we need from a sysop these days. Aichon 22:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For - An UD Wiki without Boxy as op would be like a tomato soup without tomatoes. -- Spiderzed 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)



  • Stelar (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | logs1 | logs2 | vndl data | sysop archive)
  • Not much to say here other than you may end up being the only Sysop if Bob happens to drop off the planet again! --  AHLGTG 00:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For, but I also have a question: with your first few weeks as a sysop perhaps giving you a new perspective on things, is there anything you think should be changed around here? Aichon 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    In regards to how things are run sysop-wise? Not really. Seems to be down to a fine art at this stage. But it's also hard to tell if anything should be changed being that the wiki (aside from the sudden influx of vandalism/spambots recently) is relatively quiet. stelar (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For - Maybe I will change my mind next year, but it is much too early to evaluate Stelar. And what I have seen in that short time gave me nothing to complain about. -- Spiderzed 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Re-Evaluations

See the 2016 Re-Evaluations

Archived Re-Evaluations

For earlier re-evaluations, see the following:

Re-Evaluations Scheduling

User Position Last Contribution Seat Available
A Helpful Little Gnome (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2020-06-15 2020-12-01
Bob Moncrief (Contribs) Sysop 2020-06-15 N/A
DanceDanceRevolution (Contribs) Bureaucrat 2020-06-02 2020-12-01
Rosslessness (Contribs) Sysop 2020-05-31 N/A
Stelar (Contribs) Sysop 2020-05-30 N/A

Total Sysops: 5 (excluding Kevan and Urbandead)

Last updated at: 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal tools