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

Aichon

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

As Bob just pointed out, my re-eval should have begun a few weeks ago. I'll blame the fact that my home computer has been turned off since mid-July as my excuse (been too busy to get it set back up again since we moved all of my wife's stuff into the house). No clue what excuse the rest of you have. :P —Aichon— 15:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That I am busy and that no one really cares anymore about RE at this point? Someone remind me to actually put up the RE revision someday. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Man, that fucking’ guy, I SWEAR. Every time something needs doing, he does it, oftentimes before you even know it. He’ll make the hard calls and wear the consequences if need be, except very rarely needs be because he does it right. It’s inhuman, I swear! No good will come of this.
  Which of course means I support him unreservedly.* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  _{* If he would care to furnish me with some Glen Garioch Founder’s Reserve, I will support him reservedly and enthusiastically.}
• If there ever came such a time that we doubted your identity, what indisputable piece of evidence or argument could be raised to allay any fears that you are an impostor? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  I suppose that depends on what aspect of my identity it is that you doubt, since identity confirmation relies on an ability to build upon established trust. If there's a concern that my username on the wiki has been compromised, I'd imagine the most expedient way for me to confirm my identity would be to make a change to aichon.com, which has been associated with my UD activity for years, given that I've been hosting the Soldiers of Crossman message boards there since early 2010. Or checkuser could be used to quickly see if new IP addresses in a different location were suddenly popping up. On the other hand, if you see someone in a game or on a site (including this one) claiming to be me with an account you don't recognize as mine, you're welcome to ask them to prove it by posting with my established username here on the wiki. I'm always happy to do so, and have offered it several times over the years to folks who have asked if I'm the same "Aichon" that they know from UD when they spot me in other games.
  Otherwise, there are loads of ways to reach me that I've either directly or indirectly provided via my wiki pages for years. For instance, my main user page mentions an IRC server where I've registered my nickname, the sidebar provides a way to e-mail me, another user page mentions accounts I have with the same username at other sites where I can be reached, the userscripts I've authored provide a different contact e-mail address at which I can be reached, I've had the same four characters for the entirety of my time playing the game and can modify their profiles to prove account ownership, I have accounts at the message boards for the groups to which those characters belong, and several people here (e.g. Ross, Yonn, Spider) have gotten responses to sidebar e-mails they've sent me, so they each have e-mail addresses that can be used to reach me. An impersonator would only ever have access to one or two of those at best, whereas in most circumstances I should have access to ALL of those (barring them hacking into my current e-mail and resetting loads of passwords, in which case confirming my identity in an online game would be the least of my worries).
  Plus, walls of text. Seriously. —Aichon— 16:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  But what if, after the very first second that the persona "Aichon" was created, an impostor came in and assumed all subsequent instances of "Aichon"? That is, what if you've been an impostor (nearly) this whole time? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  I actually considered addressing exactly that scenario in my initial response, but decided against doing so for two reasons:

  1. It'd be impossible to confirm that I am him, because there's no foundation on which to build trust between the original "Aichon" and anyone here.
  2. More importantly, it's a moot point, because there'd be nothing to gain by claiming to be the original.

  An imposter only stands to gain if they can supplant the original, but if the original was never planted in a community to begin with, there cannot be a supplanting. Merely a planting of a different one. Or, put differently, it'd just mean that I'm a different "Aichon", someone else using the same username, rather than an "imposter Aichon". Moreover, given that the "Aichon" persona pre-dates the launch of UD by a year or two, that one second of existence that separates the original from the imposter would have no bearing on UD, so it really wouldn't matter if I was an imposter who replaced the original, since I'd still be the same "Aichon" you've known all along. —Aichon— 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  I was going to offer to vouch for you (which I’ve done for people before), but seeing as I’ve been “Grim s” ever since he “came back”, well… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I like Aichon, he does good work and is extremely helpful in all facets of the wiki, and doesnt pose a anti-new attitude, hail Aichon... Honestly id prefer to see him as BCrat but yknow Booty Butt Whats Up02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Vouch duh. I'm just shocked y'all didn't manage to handwave him back into Cratitude while I was out. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Vouch rubber stamp this cunt.--User:Sexualharrison03:27, 18 August 2015
• 3 and a half stars I would shop here again. --_K^CLZA 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed

There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.

Recent Re-evaluations

Rosslessness

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

What starts with R and is up today? -- Spiderzed▋ 13:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Consistent, active, level-headed. Yay Ross. —Aichon— 19:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• As the last hundred or so times. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Bullet point number three. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Not Vandalism ~ _{21:01, 15 March 2015, The year of our lord (UTC)}
• Vouch - Remember when I ruined your combo on your first ever promo bid? What good days. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question I'm a player that wants to get back to playing the game again, I'm 19 years old and am starting to play Urban Dead again tonight. I got to school at UM and am friends with some programmers. I also go to school with musicians who use the crowd funding system to a whole 'nother level. I believe that UD can be crowdfunded and tweaked to perfection, college campuses already play zombie, why not offer them a chance to play all year round? I read your post about creating a test branch and I think that's a great idea. If we could link it to an Early Access campaign on kick-starter we could better fund the game right? I know that UD was the best thing to scratch my zombie itch, an now that I'm in a position to become a donater, a kickstarter would be something I would be interested in. As an Administrator what is your opinion?-JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshCz (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

  As an admin and long term urdeader I'd love the idea, anything to sustain my third favourite browser game. However the decision would be down to Kevan and history suggests he'd be less than enthusiastic. --Rosslessness 21:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  well what if the community picks a design leader, someone who has good ideas and implementation, Kevin gives the OK, and who ever wants can use the kickstarter budget to make the game, once its in a finished state Kevin gets a part of profits for his founding work being used?Would Kevin be open to that idea?Personally, as one of the few people who play I would pay to be part of the testing and we put new ideas in a test map, if the new mechanics can be properly balanced we try them on the real UD-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshCz (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

  Pop over to Kevan.org and contact him. Oh, and look at all the other cool stuff he does. --Rosslessness 21:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  I did, sent him an email-JC- btws, my first experiment is ball. Ball we slowly set up interactions to increase trading of something. football is the first game. you pick up a football in Ridley bank. The first one to pick it up has to get it carried to an objective (its written on the football) and there are other teams who can join. Get this ball to the other goal post. you can only use punches, but 5 sussessfull punches is a tackle and another player steals the one and only ball. We could set up an in game area to host the event and to collect player data. Zombies are the third team, cause we're using punches and we only need 5 there won't be beat to deaths but with zeds they just want to stop the shenanigans, if a zed holds the ball it becomes out of play and the game is over (until someone picks up another ball) we could see zombie Kevan play testing in a stress free environment pulling all the strings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshCz (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 March 2015.

• yea --User:Sexualharrison07:38, 19 March 2015
• Fuck this punk 22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In a surprising turn of events and disgusting display of rampant arbitrariness, Boxy and I have decided to retain Ross for 8 more months. -- Spiderzed▋ 10:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A Helpful Little Gnome

Successful -- boxy 11:35, 2 March 2015 (BST)

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	2021-10-14	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)