UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure(2)

Guidelines — Policy Document This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Summary

Three changes are being proposed, all aimed at improving Adminstration/Promotions by streamlining the rules and bringing them more in line with actual promotion practice.

Currently (14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC), the promotion guidelines 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 and removed wordings struck:

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 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. 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. 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

1. The wording of the leeway clause is awkward and in need of a more elegant re-wording.
2. The criterion "Indication of trust in the candidate" doesn't serve a purpose. 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.
3. 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.

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.

For

1. IV 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
2. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
3. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Although I don't see the point. If this weeks news has taught me anything, its that people really don't mind having the same people in charge for decades. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Seems good--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
6. - Cheese 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
7. --Efighter 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
8. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Sure, why not. ~ 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
10. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
11. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Yep. —Aichon— 02:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Si. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
14. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 14:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
15. --Met Fan ^F 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
16. seems reasonable enough for me. Aye Louis Vernon 11:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Nothing funny to say, just a vote in favour. Sorry! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
18. For reasons mentioned before. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Against

1. first!----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
2. against most of it is change for change sake. The Leeway bit is pretty much pointless anyway and the rest does nothing useful. --Honestmistake 02:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

   Against for against's sake? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

   Not really, the indication of trust section does serve some useful function, though it could do with a rewrite. The leeway/give edit is just semantics and the final part does next to nothing (admittedly the part about allowing further comment is nice)--Honestmistake 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Why are we getting rid of the "indication of trust" part? If a candidate can't get 3 established users to vouch for them, their bid probably should be pulled early. The rest is semantics, I think... useful changes, but hardly worthy of a policy change (or the change in minimum votes policy that it forced through) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:15 3 February 2011 (BST)

   Discussion moved to talk page -- Spiderzed▋ 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Results

• With 18 votes for and 3 against, this policy has been passed with a majority of 85.7%. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)