UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations
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
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).
- 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)
- yea --User:Sexualharrison07:38, 19 March 2015
- Fuck this punk
22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC) - (contact)/B I did, sent him an email
Re-Evaluations still needing to be processed
There are currently no Re-Evaluations to be processed.
Recent Re-evaluations
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 | 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)
