UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Questions

Any ideas on the required questions? I was thinking the same three from the wikipedia article, but what does everyone else think?

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to the Urban Dead wiki, and why?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Hmmmm?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Letting Wikipedia doing the hard yards seems fine to me, I think they're fine. What should tbe guidelines be for the community's questions, though? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove edit conflicts. If you have 2000+ edits on this wiki you have been in an edit conflict. It's all but impossible to get that many without it unless you're spamming WelcomeNewbie or Location blocks or any of the other Wiki Projects people use to try and hide their incompetence. 500 is a much better number. --Karekmaps?! 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that part of the question is more to see how a candidate handles a situation, not really centered on if you keep out of conflicts. Thats just how I interpreted it though.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never been in an edit conflict, and I easily have over 3,000 edits give or take a few. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure you have, you gave me a right dressing down over this edit! -- boxy talk • i 11:12 3 January 2008 (BST)
Read Spamming User Talk pages with Welcome Newbie template, considering you've done a very significant number of those contentless edits. --Karekmaps?! 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And that is bad because? Besides, I always check the user contribs before I add in a template. If they have been around for more than a month, I put down the {{welcomenewbie?}} template instead. The template was going to be auto-added when a user account was created, but it seems that it never eventuated. Someone has to add it, don't they? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It adds nothing to the wiki and gets your post count up, a full 511 of your edits are welcome newbie templates, best I could tell you only followed up on two or three of them. A Full 1000 of your edits are in your own User namespace, another 237 edits are to your own User Talk page, all of your administrative edits have been to your own images and groups, and the sheer majority of your contributions have been archiving. The only contact I even see you having with the wiki outside of your own group pages are in the Suggestions section, you've been a sysop for what, 6+ months now? And all you've managed to do is maybe move 12 images and retitle the first edit in your edit history(a group of your own). That's exactly why it's a bad standard for determining who should be sysop. Mobious is another stellar example of a sysop who has done the same things and has been woefully absent from all sysop duties beyond messing around on his own group pages and images. Does that make sense?--Karekmaps?! 12:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And with Welcome Newbie, no, no one has to add it, matter of fact we we better off before it it's not like it makes any more users participate or reduces the number of foolish mistakes, all it does is what I mentioned above along with being a huge and annoying template.--Karekmaps?! 12:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Any user can already ask questions during a promotion bid. All you need to do is make it a requirement for the candidate to answer your pre-set questions in their application -- boxy talk • i 07:52 3 January 2008 (BST)

Overpowered

Jebus H Clique! You're not making it easy, are you? My opinion:

  • Drop the Q & A: it's just making the bid too formulaic. Leave it loose: something like "your bid should promote your reasons for promotion, and be of at least 300 words". That lets them promote their strengths, without all the bids becoming formulaic.
  • Leave active time on wiki at 2 months. People have a short life-span on this game, generally. 2 months is plenty of time to learn the ropes of this wiki for a keen contributer. 6 months is way too long, too harsh, and only serves to bolster the battlements of an Old Guard system whereby nobody new ever gets in. Not what this policy wants, shurely?
  • Why multiply the minimum edits by four? Again, too harsh on this wiki. Why not try out 1000 for a start, and see how that goes?
  • 3 users increased to 5 with special powers? Why is everything being increased? How about you keep it at 3, but add in some of those special powers, like that they have to have the 200 edits or something. However, even then, it doesn't match with the candidate having to have 1000. How about this - match those two numbers. So, a compromise would be, 3 vouchers, each with 500 edits, and the candidate having 500 edits. Or something. The sysop requirement for a voucher (even hazy as it is) is just too cliquey. Get over yourselves, please.

Finally, like any suggestion, this one has too many parts, and is too sweeping. As it is, I would feel forced to vote against it, for the good of the wiki, which shouldn't be allowed to stagnate by forcing out newcomers. This policy assumes bad faith on the part of sysop candidacies. To find that a long-running sysop who deals mainly in vandalism cases is behind it, is no surprise. Who else would be so cynical of newcomers and so sure of their own supremacy and the high costs required to emulate them? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time, but I'd thought I'd point out that a sysop initial vouch is not required, by any means. It was in the original system, but dropped in the overhaul. I left it out so it doesn't seem so much like SysOps are controlling who gets in.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Aye, that's why I said "hazy". Still, it's strongly encouraged, which may be enough for many voters to vote against if there isn't one. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's always better to be nominated by a sysop than self-promotion. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Or to be nominated by a respected user? The idea that only a sysop should be able to judge someone else worthy for the position is what I meant when I used the word "clique". --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I always thought it was just a sysop that could put forward people (I've only seen sysops do that anyways). --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
All i came up with was a few numbers in initial discussion. These were then adopted. I didnt even have to argue for this to happen, which is extremely unusual. I have had no further input since then. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The numbers pretty much are the policy, of course. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck. You found me out. I am the man behind the curtain, pulling all the strings. This is a grand conspiracy i conceived of, then went back in time and started off 200,000 thousand years ago, and at the culmination of this event, known as the Grimch prophesy, i shall rule the world as a dark evil tyrant. All that i have left to do is infuse my soul with the essence of the demon lord Belial and pass this policy. Soon the universe will tremble before my policied might! --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sarcasm Police are on their way to pick you up. Yes, I realise it's not all your idea. My other concerns remain - it really doesn't matter who created the numbers - the end effect (nobody new ever getting into the system) remains the same. (My opinion, clearly, and not the Word of Grud, or anything.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Q&A: It's on top of what a user puts up as their bid. It's three general questions that everybody would have to answer, and would shine a lot of light on why the candidate would think that they deserve a promotion. Cuts out having to ask them when all of the users are vouching, we know straight away what their goals and ideas are.
  • The 2 months has been dropped for the very reason that too many bids are being made prematurely. When I was fairly new here, I placed a bid when I hit the required 500 edit mark, despite not knowing very well how the wiki was ran. I think you are missing the point of this overhaul, Funt. 6 months is not too long or harsh, in fact it would help ensure that the editor is dedicated to the wiki, and we would have less sysops dropping off, not more.
  • 1,000 edits? Why not try 2,000 and see how that goes? Again, 2,000 is not harsh or very difficult to reach. By being active in a few maintenance projects you will fairly quickly accumulate that many within only a few months, let alone 6.
  • I don't understand what 'special powers' you are talking about - it's exactly the same as currently, except with a few increases in accordance with the current size and scope of the wiki. Instead of 3, it would be 5. 3 isn't hard to get, so I doubt 5 is not that difficult either. Again this is to stop young, inexperienced contributors from running for sysop status for no reason other than the hollow badge. And the sysop requirement is optional, but preferred.

Who are you talking about in regards to a long-running sysop who deals mainly in vandalism cases is behind it? It was I who suggested it, and SA and me drafting it. Grim maybe had input once or twice - go have a look at the promotions talk page to see how much 'influence' he had over it. Note that I don't want people making their minds up right here and now, this is a place to discuss, mold and shape the policy into something that is agree-able for the community to vote on. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As with many policy proposers, you're quick to say this is the place for discussion, having just summarily dismissed each and every one of my concerns. That's not discussion, it's rebuttal. It's not molding and shaping, it's freezing out of criticism. Read again your response to my concerns and you'll see, you appear unwilling to alter anything, except my point of view. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Funt's concerns seem pretty spot on, listen to the man(I don't know about any grim conspiracies).--Karekmaps?! 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out I never said 'no way' to anything you said. I was providing my view as to why I created the draft as is. I'm more than happy to lower some of the figures, but I also want more input - only about 6 or so users have commented on this so far, I'd like to hear from the rest of the community. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, so far I have some problems with it. Firstly, I can't see the point in the Q/A section. Reads way too much like a formulaic interveiw. Stick in some vauge guidelines about what the user should include in their bid and leave the rest up to them, so they can include their own style a bit more. Secondly, the edit conflict thing? I try my hardest to be rational, understand the points of veiws of others and think before I type something I might regret. Even then I have found myself getting stressed out by another user's actions. While I've never realy gotten into a proper argument with another user, I don't think it is humanly possible to spend the length of time you are suggesting without getting pissed off at least once! The numbers are fairly arbitrary, And fair enougth. Personaly I'm not getting into that, what with everyone claiming that one type of edit "counts" more than another, we could talk about it until the cows come home! Just double or triple the numbers of edits and we can argue about bigger numbers. Other than that, I'd generaly go along with it.--SeventythreeTalk 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Like Karek said, "[if] you have 2000+ edits on this wiki you have been in an edit conflict. It's all but impossible to get that many without it unless you're spamming WelcomeNewbie or Location blocks or any of the other Wiki Projects people use to try and hide their incompetence." --Ryiis 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Mah response!
  • In the past people have asked questions very much like the ones being proposed. Why not have them put it up first for everyone to see?
  • Mmmm. hmm. Erm. Well 6 months is half a year and how long has Urban Dead exsisted? 2.5 years? I'm willing to settle for 4-6.
  • 2000 edits is fine, really. It can be edits to any page, any time (although if it's spam edits, I hardly believe the candidate will get much support anyways).
  • 3 500 edit users and 2 sysops? My reasoning with sysops is that they have gone through process before and know what it takes.
Popsicles.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to have 2 sysops needed for pre-community vouching. Maybe when we have more that won't be a problem. But for now, one preferable sysop vouch is what the community currently sees is fair and ok. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I do get where you're coming from, but in all seriousnes do you realy think that having a "Q and A" section is going to help us get a clearer idea of the user in question? I personaly think, that like carrer day interveiws, C.V forms, job application letters and the like it'll generaly turn into a case of "I think I should be a sysop beacuse blahblahblah" with everyone giving the same tired old reasons without any scope for personality or individual flare. Now, to two other thorny issues: The numbers issue and the "constructive edits" issue. The numbers issue, well as long as it's in multiples of 500 for easy checking there's nothing more to say. A thousand or so sounds reasonable though. Gives a vauge idea that they at least know how to make a few edits without getting their finger stuck, or kicked off the wiki. As for the constructive edits isse, why are certain edits considered "more valid?" surely the welcome newbie templates and the location block edits serve a purpose and further the efficiency and such of the wiki? To be blunt, I think there are a few more important things to consider than the amount of edits a user has made when deciding new sysops, stuff like interpersonal skills, abiblity to edit properly, willingenes to help other users, contributions to policy discusssion and such than the amount of edits they have made or the apparent "construcitvenes" of those edits.--SeventythreeTalk 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More is less, less is more

Being promoted to sysop is a display of trust from the community in the user. It tells that the user is trusted to have powers to delete and move things around, and ban users who break the rules. I for one believe that the more sysops we have in this wiki, the more mature this community is. Why should this community start trusting LESS in it's users, when it would be a lot better to have MORE sysops around ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And the Q&A thingy... it's there already, but it's not used all the times. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a link? --Ryiis 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2,000 edits is probably excessive though.1,000 seems fine, but 2,000 is going into space. I believe a trust in a sysop can be granted with 1,000 edits,rather than have him excessively combing over pages for spelling errors because he needs 2,000 edits. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
500 is already excessive. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's like to see a link there Hagnat. Where is the Q$A already? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Odd Starter started this :P Just check any successfull promotion bid, like this and you will find. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 Shillings

The Q&A section is too restricting. The edit totals are too high and at the same time pointless. As you say, it would be easy to get that many (Karek details it with a chunk of your history) Raising the active time and edit numbers to 3 months and 1000 would be more than sufficient to show the level of commitment you are looking for, better still would be asking for evidence of activity/input on Admin/Policy pages as frankly no amount of tinkering with your own page and your group page are going to qualify you for the role. I have to agree with (a lot of) what Funt says.... this seems designed purely to keep out new blood and make those that are allowed to join jump through hoops first! One last point though is that I am always suspicious of anything that claims to be aimed at avoiding people wasting time on reading stuff. I like to decide myself if its worth reading and voting on. having stuff fail before I get chance just makes me feel excluded, especially if i disagree with the opinion that was reached!--Honestmistake 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's deliberate, I'm sure. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I know ;) --Honestmistake 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another couple of pennies

  • Minimum time - it seems like 6 months is too long, but at the same time 2 months is definately too short. There is a lot to go through on the wiki, and few seem to even know there are Admin pages until at least 2 months in... let alone participate on them. My recommendation might be 4 months.
  • Minimum # of edits - I agree with Funt to some degree on this one: jumping from 500 to 2000 edits seems like a big leap. At the same time though, 500 is not enough. Any fool can go around and spam some templates or such to get to 500. Then again, the same could be said to get to 2000. If someone very badly wanted the position, I suppose they could burn themselves out straight away. All that being said, I ask this: is there any idea what the average user who has been here for 4-6 months average edit count is? Once we have that ballpark number, I think you could definately work off of that.
  • Introduction of Q&A Section - I don't like this to be honest, and that is what the current process is for. It isn't a vote to see who becomes Sysop... it is a series of comments or questions that an average user can pose to the encumbant. There is no need to add the extra stuff and make the system more cumbersome. I would say drop this section in favor of being concise.
  • Indication of Trust in a Candidate - I like this one so that some random person and his friends can't just get him shoed in for the process. It is a good indication that people have a least interacted with you, and vice versa.

All in all, I think the concept is definately good considering the circumstances that has brought this to the forefront. There is a change that needs to happen, but like Funt said, you need to be careful to temper the Policy properly. You don't want to have an "Old Guard" elitism, but at the same time, you don't want to have every other inexperienced user and his dog getting voted in. --Ryiis 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My serious slant

Minimum time. Fine. Minimum number of edits. Fine. If you did 500 in 2 months you can do 2000 in 6.

Introduction of Q and A.

The standard questions seem fine. As for the additional questions, These required questions would be asked by any current Bureaucrat or a System Operator. Why not have a system for additional questions to be submitted to a specific bureaucrat or sysop who can strain out important themes, without a huge debate on what is appropriate after every question.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that straight away you've made a false assumption - the sysop or beauracrat asks the required 3 questions, and then anyone else in the community can submit their own optional questions at a later time. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I realise that, my suggestion is that someone should be a screener for questions and filter them down to 3 or 4 additional questions based on the individual candidate.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Are the questions actually needed though? While promoting a User to Sysop is, in a sense, a big deal... do we really need to have a Spanish Inquisition? I mean, the whole point of this process is to allow the community to ask questions of the encumbant, and make commentary on the subjective worthiness of the individual for the position. 14 questions later, with page long responses for each, it is going to get a little dry. Do we really need a Q&A section, and if so, can't we just limit it to the three main question then? --Ryiis 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not have 3 general questions? They are fairly open-ended and help the community grasp why the candidate is running for sysop status. One could be something along the lines of why do you think you will benefit from a sysop position? and what major project or area would you focus your time and effort on? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
3 general questions is better than having 3 + Optional questions and turn the process into an essay writing contest. This isn't University, and we don't need an entire curriculum vitae or thesis statement. 3 general is okay, but I don't like the idea of pre-determined questions in the first place to be honest -Ryiis 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and if you did 500 in 2 months, then you would do 1500 in 6. That's just me being picky though ;-) --Ryiis 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me as i assumed the longer time and increased knowledge you gained would improve your rate of posting. As for the 14 questions on full pages kind of thing, Thats why i suggested a question sorter role, reduce it down to 4 originals and 3 or so additionals, as a clarification of something said in the initial application, or something overlooked.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it could be safe to assume that as you spend time on the wiki, your editing prowess should increase and thusly your edit count. I'm just trying to find a happy medium for those who think that 2000 is too high, but agree that 500 is too low. 1000? 1500? Or stay with the 2000? While 2000 may seem right, and be optimum, this Policy still needs to be "sold" if you will. While you can't please everyone, you can at least make concessions.
As for the questions, I suppose I wouldn't mind them so much if each candidate had their own "promotion page", much like the way we do Policy Discussions. That way there wouldn't be a bunch of clutter, and might make it look more orgainzed rather than a mess of comments and re:s all over the place. --Ryiis 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea there Ryiis, but I think that will need to be brought up another time after this policy has been delt with. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps 2000 is a little too high. 1500, or even 1000 would be better. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with the single page idea. I hate all this scrolling. Why is 2000 too high? What if it was lowered but the definition of 'edits' was changed to show positive help, like location blocks, suggestion feedback or helping new users? (I dont just mean the highly debated welcome templates, but suggesting things, pointing out mistakes or showing the finer side of wiki etiquette.))--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to be a theme - 1000 is a substaintial compromise. In reading some of the links Dux provided, Wikipedia didn't jump from 500 to 2000 in one go. Instead, they increased it in increments: 500 to 1000, and then between 1000 and 2000. That is possibly the best way to do it, so that the community can judge the smaller changes, rather than making radical or sweeping changes. --Ryiis 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a much bigger community, you really can't begin to try and compare the UDwiki with wikipedia. I thikn the current Sysop system works wonderfully. Right now there are no "bad" Sysops and a truely ridiculous attempt at becomming a Sysop (mine) has been stopped.--Thekooks 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea is to stop the truely ridiculous attempts from ever happening: as in your case --Ryiis 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, Wikipedia doesn't actually have any "you need to meet this criteria or you fail". (I tink). They're just recommendations. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
However the 'recommendations' are pretty substantial in helping you gain a position. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Random question. Do sysops get an initial trial period? In case the true ridiculous happens?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No.--Karekmaps?! 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No way in, Cerberus is at guard

While I see all the requeriments mentioned on the policy as common sense and practice when dealing with promotions, being more representative of the kind of users the community actually promotes instead of misleading newcomers into posting themselves without having gained enough community support and wiki knowledge, my concern is as follows: that the higher requeriments will be treated as an absolute minimum and thus thighten the doors towards Sysop status even more.

What I'm referring to is that the requeriments presented are the ones many Sysops barely achieved before being promoted (not my case, so avoid being a loudmouth), and thus if they are implemented as an absolute minimum the term "barely" will reflect negatively on such candidacies and, combined with big dogs guarding the entrance door, candidates that would otherwise be popular and/or successful will fail their candidacies. THE requeriment, after all, for adquiring Sysop status is being trustworthy, not fulfilling some insane requeriments at some user-with-a-fanbase's will. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know Big Dog isn't necessarily a compliment, right? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The new look?

Are we aiming for a layout like this?

Yes, except another section for community questions. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Example User

I've been around 3 months, and I've made to date 1550 edits. As you can see [link here] and [link here], I've been in the leadership role attempting to create a new format for this page. I'd very much like to become a System Operator.

Questions for the candidate

Mandatory? Highly recommended?

1) What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A : Blah blah. Example User

2) What are your best contributions to the wiki, and why?

A : No way! Example User

3) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A : Yes! Example User

Comments

  • Vouch - I am willing to vouch for this user. -- Voucher 03:41, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Against - Example User, I haven't seen any evidence of your work on the wiki. --Some user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  • Vouch - Example User is the most active guy here. --Another user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  • Abstain - I'm just not sure, but I don't want to say why for some reason. --Some other user 19:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)

A general problem with limiting optional questions to 5: People will just ask questions in their comments. I'm also thinking a minimum of constructive 1000 edits or a flat 2000 anything edits. Mmm?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

constructive Oh dear! Whats a constructive edit? We talking about edits outside your user area?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
who gets to define "constructive" though? I think the welcome templates are useful and wish they had been about when I first started here, I would not count them as particularly constructive for these purposes though as the same thing could be done with a compulsory link being added to the top of every new users page (or many other ways!) Likewise tinkering with your page. It may be good for honing your editing skills but its hardly of benefit to the wider wiki and doesn't really do anything towards earning community trust does it? Admin page activity, policy discussion and even suggestion page contributions are the most visable ways to demonstrate judgement and a lot of other edits are the type that demonstrate ability and dedication. Any flat figure is not going to do a good job of illustrating a candidates strengths and weaknesses.
Rosslessness asks whether new sysops get a "trial" period, would it not perhaps be a good idea to introduce one? Perhaps 3 months, after which people can comment but the decision is down to the Crat. In effect the clear will of the community grant the post as a trial and the Crat still makes the deciding vote; just 3 months later when an idea of how the responsibility has been handled?--Honestmistake 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I ditched the optionals. And are we settled on 1000 edits? Or 1500? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaysus!

I leave to go to school, only to find that this page has been swamped? Well, seeing as how there is such a large amount of stuff now, I'm not commenting on what everyone else wrote. If you need me for anything, leave a note on my talk. You know, clarification of what I/We (mostly me. :P) meant with "x part of y section", an overall look at some of your guys' proposed changes, the like. Later. I'm going to go play somewhere else.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the policy that was formed somewhere else, is also to be discussed by one of its creators somewhere else? Odd. Why not discuss your own policy here on the policy discussion page? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Because of two reasons. A) Dux knows just about everything about it as it is. And B) Too much writing. I know I'm being lazy, but I also just don't have time. In fact, I've got just enough time to do a quick sweep of the admin pages before I have to go to work. I'm pulling off some major over time these next few days, so I won't be here. Which is why I'd rather people discuss anything they'd need me for on my page, that way I'd know about it faster.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ideas

It seems that most people here do realise that a change is needed, but where that line falls is what we want to figure out. Here's my ideas from the above discussion:

  • Minimum 1,000 edits
  • At least 3 months in the community
  • 3 vouches with 500 edits each, one preferably a sysop
  • 3 requred questions, with an optional question from each community member

I'd be willing to say the candidate needs 1,500 edits, 1,000 of those to be constructive towards the wiki. However, this would create too many arguements over the nature or number of a candidate, and shifts focus away from the intention of the promotion.

The 3 questions, again, I think are needed. They help add transparency to the candidate promotion process and simply make it easier for people to see who they are adding support for. They would be something along these lines:

  • What admin work do you intend to take part in?
  • What are your best contributions to the wiki, and why?
  • Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Each deals with its own area and gives light on the core of the candidate's intentions. This is not the Malton inquisition, this is several reasonable questions being asked so the process can be bettered. Wikipedia does it on a routine basis, why not do it here as well? No one here as far as I can see has given me a reasonable objection as to why we should not include 3 mandatory questions.

I like the idea of each promotion being its own separate page, however that is a maintenance issue, not a policy decision. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh....Capitulation isnt compromise. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There has to be something close to a middle ground though. 1500 edits, 4 months, 4 vouches/500 edits each? --Ryiis 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the hundreds of civilization i turned my vassals after i defeated them in the field of battle. Capitulation and a life of servitude saved them from certain doom. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Capitulation isnt compromise". Well, that's an unhelpful, trolling comment, isn't it? Because, what you have there, is a compromise. It's a middle ground between the original proposal, and the suggestions of various contributers. Many people have asked that the Q&A be dropped, but it's still there. On the other hand, the harsh numbers have been tamed, but not brought back to current values. It's pretty much a dictionary definition of compromise. In no way is it capitulation. I'm swaying towards voting for this policy, but still think that edits as a measure of worth are odd. Edits as a measure of newness are okay, as far as they go, but you can't expand them up in a linear fashion and call them worth. The Q&A I'd put up with, but still feel it's too stifling. Voters can ask any question they want. What's wrong with that method? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the third question but everything else is spot on... you comment about the 1500 edits and arguments over constructive edits was exactly my problem with the numbers. This is not my idea of perfect but it is very workable and not too controversial... would still like to see a trial period for new sysops but that is a different discussion! --Honestmistake 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Third question seems problematic. Maybe something about and arb/vandal cases you've been directly involved in?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the third question is pretty much right. We need to know two things: If the person is stable. We dont want a rabid loony. Also, honesty, and the persons ability to paint an accurate picture without vast tainting of the event. Knowledge of a persons conflict avoidance and minimisation is absolutely essential, and pretty much the only look into the pshyche of the person that we will ever get until they start ruling on A/VB. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to ask the person running for sysop to adress the 3 questions in their bid, as opposed to asking them to awnser the questions sperately? Something like it is reccomended that you consider and awnser the following threee questions at some point in your bid? I jsut don't like the idea of turning it all into some kind of questionaire, that's all.--SeventythreeTalk 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the entire point of the questions is so people can clearly see their answers. Remember, this does not replace the little paragraph that the candidate puts up, it mearly compliments it. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Irony incarnate ITT --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Im not a rabid loony. Im just evil. -The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So, Grim, you're saying that "conflict avoidance and minimisation is absolutely essential" in a sysop candidate? Robobob's right: that's pure irony in action. "You have burnt all my remaining mercy. None shall be shown in future". I can understand that a sysop must be capable of reasoned discussion, but we all lose it from time to time, you included. Pretty much all the sysops included. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I said "Knowledge of a persons conflict avoidance and minimisation is absolutely essential,". I didnt specify if it had to be good or bad, its just that that kind of thing needs to be out in the open so people can make an informed decision. Of course, you already knew that, didnt you, Captain Misquote. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I would hope that any question regarding conflict not be used as a stick to beat people with, is all. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Its promotions. Of course its going to be used like a stick to beat people with. Everything else is. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It can also be used as a support for your promotions bid too. --SeventythreeTalk 12:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything else?

Discussion has died down. Anything else to change? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I was hoping there would be more discussion from the revision I posted above. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 10:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, i think we should take a leaf from job interview questions. Ask them what they think being a sysop means, and also ask them what being a sysop means to them. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure that we came up with solid figures so I will re-state my favoured options:

  • I am happy with 3 months and 1000 edits to be the mins for canditate consideration...
  • I would be happy for those to be the criteria for the first 3 vouchers (vouchees?) as well
  • Am against making a sysop vouch essential.
  • I would (probably) support a minimum 1 month account duration for all voters as a way to prevent sock puppets.
  • on a related note I think we urgently need at least 1 more Crat so that the final decision does not fall on just 1 person!

Think that covers pretty much everything! --Honestmistake 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Oh and what the edit conflicting bane of my wiki-life just added ;) --Honestmistake 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is not wikipedia. I have seem people quoting others from WP, and that's plain wrong. We have already said that being a sysop is nothing but a janitor's job in the wiki. Instead of tweaking the rules so that only a few users could get these powers, we should instead focus on how to give it to even more users. Instead of only 25 sysops we should have 60 of them.
I'd say that a way for more users to get hold on some sysops powers is to break the sysop user into four different kind of users: there would be the 'mover', with the ability to move articles around; the 'protector', with the ability to protect and unprotect pages and edit protected pages; the 'eraser', which could delete and undelete files; and the kicker', which would be able to ban users. Our current sysop team would remain under the 'sysop' class, which would be users with all these abilities.
A user with few edits and few time in the community could them be promoted to 'mover' (the ability all users had in the beginning), and after some months and more editing be promoted again, to 'protector', and so forth and he becomes a fully empowered sysop. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that's a damn good idea. But it would need some modifications to the wiki to allow us to give users access to those single editing privileges -- boxy talk • i 12:30 9 January 2008 (BST)
That's a cool idea, assuming it's possible. One probelm. We can't really make every user that's been here a while a protector. The point of page protecting so people can't edit it, and if everyone can then that defeats the purpose. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Im agreed, we need a third crat so we can get a majority decision, instead of the boxy show. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I second that decision for another 'crat. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Application, consideration, then opinion

Have you thought of having the applicant put them self forward, then answer questions/criticism for a set period, and then open the floor for everyone to express their opinion, yeah or neigh? That way, everyone can wiegh up the for and against arguments before making a decision -- boxy talk • i 12:08 9 January 2008 (BST)

The first two have already been done/in the middle of. I was hoping for a bit more discussion on my revision, as I have already stated. That is happening now, and I hope to address another round of considerations people have before making any decision to modify / go ahead. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we forget?

Or have we not come to a conclusion? Should this not be in voting? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

People forgot about this policy since the other one i wrote presents a better solution for the promotion problem (like there was ever one). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So are we dropping it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hell no. I'll do a revised edition with all of the points raised here in talk taken into consideration, then I'll ask for it to be put up for voting. Who decides when it goes to voting? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The author, I believe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dux, you can decide when. If you haven't noticed, I've essentially turned over responsibility to you. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough then! Ahem... I'll update it and put it up for voting within the next 24hrs then. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting Closed?

When is voting closed on an issue? Is it too late to vote on this?--Memoman 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I see that it will be displayed at the bottom of the vote when closed--Memoman 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1st Feb, I think. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Promotion_Guidelines_Overhaul&oldid=2100992"