UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure

Summary

Three new policies are being proposed, all aimed at improving Adminstration/Promotions by streamlining the rules and bringing them more in line with actual promotion practice. None of these policies are mutually exclusive.

Policy 1: Updated Promotion Criteria

Currently (22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC), the promotion criteria read as this:

Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate: Significant time within the community. We define this as at least 2 months since the candidate's first edit. Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki. Significant activity within the community. We define this as at least 500 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name. Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki. Prior interest in maintaining the community. We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and taking leadership roles on the wiki. Desire to become a System Operator. We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position (Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination). 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 user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria. Once the candidate satisfies these guidelines, the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for becoming 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. The current amount of System Operators running should not influence your decisions when voicing your opinion. Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator.

The text should be changed to this, with changed/added wordings in red:

Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate: Significant time within the community. We define this as at least 4 months since the candidate's first edit. Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki. Significant activity within the community. We define this as at least 1,000 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name. Note: looking in a User's User contributions might give false results for this criterion, as the edit history is periodically purged on this wiki. Prior interest in maintaining the community. We define this as clear evidence that the candidate is already performing maintenance tasks and taking leadership roles on the wiki. Desire to become a System Operator. We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position (Note that if a person is nominated by another user, the candidate in question should note their acceptance of the nomination). 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 user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria. Once the candidate satisfies these guidelines, the user is then subject to a community discussion. All users are asked to comment on the candidate in question, ask questions of the candidate, and discuss the candidate's suitability for becoming 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. The current amount of System Operators running should not influence your decisions when voicing your opinion. Once the two weeks are up, the Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator.

Reasoning

Over the years, the standards for promotion have dramatically risen. Doubling the numbers brings them closer in line with actual practice, while not completely overwhelming and frustrating new users. Apart from being more accurate, it could cut down on the number of futile self-nominations.

Policy 2: No Automatically-Timed Closure Of A/PM Discussion

Currently (22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC), the promotion guidelines include the following:

This will continue for two weeks, as all users get a chance to air their opinions on the candidate.

This sentence should be expanded as following:

This will continue for two weeks to allow all users an opportunity to voice their opinion regarding a candidate's qualifications for promotion. After two weeks, the Bureaucrats are responsible for announcing their decision within a reasonably short period of time. Users may continue to add their thoughts until the Bureaucrats announce their decision.

Reasoning

Closing votes makes sense in popular votes as Bureaucrat Promotion or Guides/Review. Promotion isn't a popular vote at all, but depends rather solely on the decision of the Bureaucrats, so that the tally of vouches and againsts is irrelevant.

Therefore, this policy wouldn't actually change the Promotion process much at all. It would mostly serve to remove clutter from its rules.

Policy 3: No "Three Vouches" Criterion

Currently (22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC), the promotion guidelines include the following:

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.

This criterion should be entirely removed.

Reasoning

With the current size and liveliness of the community, most experienced users have no trouble at all to get three or more vouches.

The only ones who would have trouble to gain at least three vouches are those who haven't (yet) gained any community support. These users would already be turned down by the Bureaucrats based on the community discussion.

Moreover, this criterion is redundant. At the heart of the process, the Bureaucrats review the discussion as a whole - which already takes the number and source of any vouches into account (among other things).

Therefore, this policy wouldn't actually change the Promotion process much at all. It would mostly serve to remove clutter from its rules.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Policy 1: Updated Promotion Criteria

For

1. Spells out what everyone already feels anyway. 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
2. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. you have my vote -- LEMON #1 23:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. No problem in making de facto standards more official (so as Mis, basically.) Linkthewindow  Talk  00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
6. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
7. - The promotion criteria should actually (or more accurately) reflect what is currently used in practice; otherwise, you are more or less moving the goal post, which is unfair to the candidates who see a less stringent guideline or expectation (as currently outlined in the criteria), but are evaluated on something else entirely. -MHSstaff 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
8. - This is quite reasonable.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. Against - As I said on the talk page, I don't feel that we should be raising the minimum to meet our expectations, since that excludes potential candidates, but should instead merely emphasize what our expectations are while keeping the minimum as it is. Any expectations we have are essentially the average for what we consider acceptable as a sysop candidate, so there should always be ample room allowed for the outliers on either side. For instance, two of our current sysops don't even have 500 edits in the last 6 months, and if they were hypothetical candidates today, we might be willing to promote them since they're close to 500 and are likely exceptional in the other criteria. If the criteria were changed, however, they'd no longer even be close to meeting the criteria, which would essentially eliminate them from the running, despite the fact that they might be perfectly qualified. I could go for 3 months, probably, but the minimum edits should stay at 500. —Aichon— 23:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   And like I said on the talk page, the criteria are heavily softened by clauses (which Policy 1 doesn't touch at all). The "exceptional in one criterion" clause alone would save reliable long-time ops who have dropped to 500 edits. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   It'd save proven 'ops, sure, but what about unproven people who are equally qualified? Being so far off from that one criteria, even if they are exceptional elsewhere, likely wouldn't be enough to save their nomination. The level of leeway only goes so far, after all. That's what I'm concerned about. —Aichon— 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Against i think the system works just fine. not that i fully understand it or anything.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Against - As I said in discussion, I don't think this policy needs to be changed. I think Aichon summed it up pretty well. ~ 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Strongly Against - As Aichon. The currently policy works fine as it, and I strongly oppose measuring candidates by a certain number, in this case 1000 edits. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Weak Against - After a long period of consideration, I'm going to go against, because I haven't really seen a reason why we should change to these numbers. I personally wouldn't consider these the right numbers, and Aichon makes several points against raising them at all.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Against - We need more sysops more than we need better sysops. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed - less than 20 votes and no 2/3 majority. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy 2: No Automatically-Timed Closure Of A/PM Discussion

For

1. Anything that helps to lessen the impression of A/PM as a vote is a good move to take. 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
2. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
3. For - While I don't disagree with Yonn, I just don't see it as a major issue. As Mis, basically. —Aichon— 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. and my axe -- LEMON #1 23:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
6. I suggested this, so duh. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
7. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
8. fucking fine----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Good enough. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
10. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
11. - As Mis. MHSstaff 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. I was for this, but it's occured that this will end up with people arguing with the crats like the time lots of people went to Boxy's talk page. The idea that there's a point where it's over will stem this. However, I wouldn't mind if people's unrelated comments were just left on the promotion bid in practice.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed - more than 2/3 majority, but less than 20 votes total. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy 3: No "Three Vouches" Criterion

For

1. The cats are intelligent enough to recognise no hopers without having to count vouches. 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
2. This is a dead criterion which just needs to be legislated out now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
3. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. and my bad sense of humour -- LEMON #1 23:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
6. As Yon and Mis. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
7. While Aichon does have a point, this will do more good than harm. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
8. votin' is fun----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
9. This is probably the only part of the policy that should change. ~ 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
10. As Mis and Yon. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
11. For - One day, we won't have three people. --VVV ^RPMBG 10:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

    And that makes me sad :'( --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

12. The 'crats know joke promotions when they see them, and this gets rid of unnecessary red tape. -MHSstaff 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. Against - But only barely. I think it'd be better if it were replaced with something that says that users who fail to acquire 3 vouches from established members of the community would have their bids removed early (it wouldn't be a bullet point, but would instead just be somewhere else). Otherwise, removing this might mean that we get stuck with bids for the full two weeks for people who are lousy candidates but may mostly meet the other criteria. —Aichon— 23:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   I see no reason for the cats to show a lack of support for the candidate from the outset, and encourage withdrawal early. No need for a formal rule for it. 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   It's basically so that we can remove the ridiculous ones early. For instance, if someone has been active for awhile and does some janitorial work, but is totally unfit to be a sysop for other reasons (e.g. immaturity, can't handle drama, is just a plain idiot, etc.), we shouldn't be prevented from removing them early if there's no show of support. —Aichon— 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Or woot. Good god, why didn't we think of woot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   I reserve my right to call anyone an idiot anywhere and anytime.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   Aren't woot's rapidly repeated promotion bids already covered by A/VB? At least we have multiple precedence of that getting treated as vandalism (woot, Jerrel). And vandal edits already get reverted. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   This may sound like allowing crats to sidestep the incoming red tape, but the crats, I think, will always have the right to cycle joke/terrible/no-hoper bids early like they do now. In fact, I don't think the "3 vouches" thing ever came into consideration when crats or sysops ever did this- we did it because, given the circumstances at the times, we could (and should). And naturally we never needed to use the 3 vouch rule to justify this. In terms of allowing joke bids to be removed quickly, I don't think this criterion removal will change this in practice- it'll just get rid of all the silly header nonsense and all the perceived importance surrounding it. -- LEMON #1 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with my esteemed colleague. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   Blake Firedancer's bid strikes me as an immediate example of when the three vouch rule caused problems.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed - more than 2/3 majority, but less than 20 votes total. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)