UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure

i like main headers

I got the idea from reading Aichon's musings on promotion bids. I was already previously aware of the numbers being off, but that article has given me the impetus to rise from my sofa and do something about it.

Note that the criteria text is about minimum requirements, so I aimed to keep the numbers still tame (though closer to actual practice than the current numbers).

There could also other changes be done while the text is overhauled: Such as highlighting more strongly that A/P isn't a popular vote. Or putting the janitorial work criteria on the top, as it's often underestimated, and 80% of an op's work is janitorial. But before I rock the boat too hard, I first want some feedback. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is good, but I don't like the moreover sentence you added in. I think if somebody needs to be told that it means useful edits, they aren't even vaguely adequate for the position.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to call it "making it fool-proof". But I definitively see your reasoning, and would too prefer an op candidate who knows those things without being explicitely told so. I just think that the criteria are mostly a stop-gap measure for triggerhappy newbs, while those who have been around and active enough to be viable ops don't need to look anymore that hard at the fineprint on the top of A/PM. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

While that is true to some degree, I would argue that there needs to be some honest description of what qualities and edits viable candidates should have/ be performing for the community prior to candidacy. Right now, that is not entirely clear, and oftentimes, is not made clear until after a failed bid. Perhaps part of the hurdle is "figuring that out for yourself," but I think that there is not much harm in making the "true criteria" clear from the beginning, otherwise, you are sorta wasting people's time. -MHSstaff 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. In fairness I've only seen one truly futile bid. (It begins with an "X"). Not sure really, as the criteria suggests that strength in one area can lead to acceptance regardless of weaknesses in another area. I don't want to see less sysops bids, I'd rather see more. We're losing sops at a rate greater than we're gaining them. Hmmm.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, when I discount former ops as Aichon or Rooster, I see currently hardly users who could fulfill an op role on the spot. There are a few who could grow into such a role when they work much harder on it (such as Mister Game, TripleU or Axe Hack). But right off the bat, without a couple of more months of janitorial work and/or projects? Tough luck. Now if that means that a.) we need better users (by luck, by encouraging promising ones or by recruiting wiki-savvy UD players who aren't active on the UD wiki), or b.) that we have to lower the bar by a good bit would be a question only the community could answer - either in actual A/PM practice, by denying/granting to make the written A/PM criteria any harsher, or preferably both. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd vouch for Vapor in a heartbeat (pretty sure Misanthropy would too), and Vapor is a brand new user around the wiki. Just sayin'. —Aichon— 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There are cats in my bag and this may have been one of them. Though, in all honesty, I'd support this policy if the amendments were to apply to self-nomination only. Veteran users and other ops would be able to recognise talent more readily and should be encouraged to forge ahead without needing to wait for red tape. 16:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... Like I told already Thad, I don't think that the A/PM criteria are hard criteria. They are already heavily entwined with heavily softening clauses. And I wouldn't want to create actual hard rules, as they'd be utterly pointless with the heavy emphasis on discussion and crat fiat at the heart of the process. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying make the hard rules, I'm just saying the guidelines by which self-nominations are judged should be sterner, but we shouldn't discourage others nominating someone they can see has the talent. 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. OK then. Can see your reasoning, but not sure if it's needed. Third-party nominations seem already to have some stronger intrinsic authority than self-nominations. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for a compromise between the current criteria and Aichon's. On one hand, you want to be honest with people what the true qualifications are, but on the other, you do not want to make it seem so overwhelming that no one wants to apply. Reading Aichon's points, the bar is set pretty high, and perhaps it is a little too high. The other way to look at this is at the end of the day, sysops are really just trusted users who have the ability to a do a few tasks that others can't (protect,move,delete,ban). A lot of it seems to be learning on the job. Why not just lower the bar, have the a sysop's first promotional period be a "probationary period" and then reevaluate them after two months or so. Wouldn't you rather have twenty trained / in the process of training sysops than 6 superstars, in which if one leaves, it puts a lot of strain on the other five ?-MHSstaff 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then again, sysop seems to be where fun goes to die, so yeah, maybe keeping the bar high is perhaps doing everyone a favor. -MHSstaff 19:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, "my" criteria aren't mine at all. I was merely stating the facts of the matter with the intent of painting a frank picture of how things actually are for any hopeful candidates. Honestly, if I were to pick the number of edits, I'd probably leave it at 500, but would emphasize the fact that it's considered a minimum and that more than that is typical of sysops. We've had excellent sysops that hover around the 500 edits per 6 months line, so I don't see a point in artificially raising that bar just because the majority of sysops have more than that. Merely emphasizing that 500 edits is the minimum should be enough. —Aichon— 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what I just said above, I also wouldn't bump it up to 6 months. I'd maybe be willing to go up to 3, but beyond that and I think we'd just be limiting ourselves too much. As Ross said, I'd rather have more candidates than less, and while I definitely said some frank things and outlined a lot of hard truths about the system with that page you linked, Spiderzed, that doesn't necessarily mean I hold people to that standard personally, nor do I think they should be held to that standard. If anything, that page is for the benefit of the candidates when figuring out what they can work on prior to nomination, NOT the people to use as a checklist before they give their vouch to the candidate (I think I'll add that idea to the page, actually...), and should be used more as a goal to achieve in the long-term, rather than the bar for entry. Most of the current and former sysops (myself included) wouldn't have met the standard I outlined in that article at the time that we were nominated. Basically, I wouldn't change the standards, but I might advocate some more honesty in what's typical or expected, as opposed to merely expressing the minimum. Even then though, I'd suggest being careful, since I don't want to scare off anyone that might be a viable candidate. —Aichon— 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We could also put the cart before the horse and list both minimum and recommended numbers. I.e., "We define this as at least 2 months since the candidate's first edit (but recommend 6 or more months)" and "We define this as at least 500 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name (but recommend 2.000 or more edits)". That would keep both the bare minimum bar, but also make it clear that usually much more is expected from a viable candidate.

But before I do any actual rewrites on the draft, I want the text to simmer for a couple of days. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, though I'm not even sure that that's the best way to handle it. The careful line we need to walk here is between discouraging people from running by putting up high standards and encouraging people to meet a higher standard in order to run. The standards are really already there, even though they're not written down, but we need to approach this in a way that makes it seem not like a wall that blocks the path, but rather like a stair step towards a goal. —Aichon— 21:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I'm leaning on no here, for the reasons Aichon mainly listed. Increasing the months and minimum edits by 3 to 4 times is just way too much. It needlessly discourages good candidates while the stupid ones (anyone remember Jerrel Yokoroty?) submit without even reading those qualifications. Honestly, I don't why we need to change the criteria, if aint broke don't fix it etc. The criteria are pretty clear. Something I would be in favor of would be giving a link with recommendation to read Aichon's helpful guide and especially this page. --Thadeous Oakley 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm purposefully not taking lusers as Jerrel into consideration. There's no safeguard but the predetermined denial against users who don't even read the text on the top of the page. (Except maybe hitting them repeatedly with a baseball bat while yelling "NO!", but I think Jerrel's place of residency has laws against that kind of solution.)

As for effect, I know myself pretty well that there is little. The criteria are already heavily softened by surrounding context ("guidelines", "should be met by the candidate", "If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria" etc.), and once the A/PM procedure boils down to the crats making their decision by interpreting the community discussion, they play hardly a role at all - at least not a role as hard, enforceable rules that can be easily checked against the crat decision-making. What can be done is however to cut down on disappointments when users who clearly aren't ready, but unlike the Jerrels of this wiki have read the criteria, apply (such as Dez). -- Spiderzed▋ 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I like it, I don't even read those 'guidelines' anymore cause they are so out of date they mean nothing. Let's face it. They are too low, this wiki's gotten larger, the standards have risen and these rules were never changed to accommodate it. -- LEMON #1 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the "if it ain't broke" bunch here. The current criteria limits absolute newbs to the wiki from becoming a sysop and that's all that's needed. The voting process really is what matters. Oh and thanks for the vote of confidence Aichon and Mis. I may one day decide to give in :) ~ 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed new criteria are fine. Maybe take down the time on wiki qualification to 4 or 5 months. Half a year seems a bit extreme.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, half a year is a bit extreme. That, or stress that the guidelines are malleable enough so that a person who's been active for under six months, but still a viable candidate, can be promoted (that last bit is already in there, under "If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria." (on the main A/PM page.) Also, excuse my crappy English grammar skills (damn the ACT board of studies,) but shouldn't "a certain level of give" be reworded. It just sounds ... wrong. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done something about the "a certain level of give" sentence - it's not crucial, but it's nice to clean up minor awkwardies while we are at it. I'm not sure if my alternative is the best one, though, as I'mnot a native speaker. Feel free to suggest different solutions. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. That "certain level of give" sentence, although I think it's technically grammatically correct, has been annoying me for a while. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd write it as, "If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain amount of leeway may be given with the other criteria." —Aichon— 22:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"We define this as at least 2.000 edits in the past six months under the candidate's name." - shouldn't there be a comma instead of a full stop (2.000 becomes 2,000.)? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking how several users found my numbers too tough, I've reduced it to 4 months and 1,000 edits. Still think that 6 months/2,000 edits are closer to truth, but it would still be a step into the right direction. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the calendar I've seen that this PD is due to be cycled in little more then a week. If there are still objections, I'd like to hear them pretty soon as I'd like to actually take this policy proposal to voting. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Other then what I've written below, nothing. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

new criteria

i'd like to add a new criteria

• whenever hagnat ask for promotion, he gets promoted

sounds totally sane and fair to me. wut ya guys think ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if we add

• Whenever Rosslessness, Linkthewindow or boxy ask for promotion, they get promoted.

We all know it's already true with Ross, at least :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

that's a nice addition for the criteria... i am all for it :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it would probably happen anyway under the current set up. Why do you think I nommed axey? Got to stack the court in my favour. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

woooo... can i haz promotion then ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Will only vouch if this feature is extended to Darth Sensitive is well. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Closing" promontion bids after two weeks have passed

Reading through old promotion bids, some of them are "closed" two weeks after the start of the bid, but before the crat has made their decision.

Any chance we can discourage this while we are passing this criteria? This doesn't make any sense, as promotions is not a vote, and thus "closing" a bid doesn't make any sense (like it does with A/PD, A/BP, etc.) Linkthewindow  Talk  09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, yes please. ALSO let's finally get rid of the "must be 3 vouches to continue" shit. Let's just have one header, not two. No one (not me at least) ever listens to that anyway except for faggots trying to be a nuisance. -- LEMON #1 01:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

+1. To both. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration, I've decided to include neither of the two suggestions into this policy. The reason for this is that unlike the soft criteria text,

• allowing "voting" even after the 2 weeks (but before the crat announcement) and
• getting rid of the three vouches

actually change the A/PM process. Directly tying an actual change of a vital admin procedure as A/PM (even a minor one) with a mere, much needed wording update would massively reduce the chance for the wording update to get through. I'd prefer to submit them separately to avoid this. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Then split it in to three votes, such as Giles' VD policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So like this? Didn't think of that case, thanks for the heads up. Now I'll only need to think up a better name for this proposal, as with the addition of those two points it would go beyond the criteria alone. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Update of promotions procedures?" Something like that? To A/MR! Linkthewindow  Talk  14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting rid of the three vouches isn't a bad idea, actually. Every candidate, except complete noobs can get their three vouches, and removing it will tidy up the page a little, and streamline the process more. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Modified Policy 2 to say Discussion instead of voting

Otherwise it is misleading since this is not really a vote. -MHSstaff 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Especially as it saves me the awkward tongue twister "Voting Closing" in the policy name. (Say that twenty times!) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, related to this part of the policy, the problem is that it leaves the door open for Bureaucrats to string along a candidate and never close the nomination, or else leave one open longer than two weeks in the hope that more opinions favoring their side might come along. I'd rephrase your addition to say, "After the two week period is finished, the Bureaucrats are responsible for announcing their decision regarding the nomination within a reasonably short period of time. Users may continue to add their thoughts until the Bureaucrats announce their decision." This makes sure that the 'crats have a responsibility to still close things up quickly, without getting too litigious by dictating hard numbers. —Aichon— 22:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

^^^^^. Make this man a 'crat. -MHSstaff 22:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to be a sysop first. ;) —Aichon— 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely to string someone along like that is an abuse of their position and therefore A/Mable though. 22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since previously it wasn't their responsibility to close the proceedings, I just wanted to make sure it was in writing somewhere that it is now their responsibility, that way it would be A/Mable, rather than being a case of "it doesn't say anywhere that we have to!" I definitely agree that it should be A/Mable, so that's why I suggest adding the text, just to make sure that it absolutely is. —Aichon— 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

^That's why you need someone else to read potential policies - and why it should be someone who can think like the most malign douche hellbent to twist the rules the wiki could ever see. Ceterum censeo Aichon esse 'crat. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see this is a potential problem, unless a troll is somehow elected to a crat (actually, on second thoughts, that's happened before.) All crats take their job seriously enough to prevent anything like that happening. That said, I don't see a problem with completely plugging any potential holes in the policy. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

personally, I disagree. I only remember the crats of the last few years since Cheese left being boxy, me, you and SA. They were good (sa was 'good' when he took the wiki seriously as a crat, not much after) cmon man, we were rockin crats. -- LEMON #1 14:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you drunk, thats a list of all the recent crats. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he forgot Kevan. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

sigh --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rewrite it like this:

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 expected to announce their decision within a reasonably short period of time. Users may continue to add their thoughts until the Bureaucrats announce their decision.

-MHSstaff 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Change "expected to announce" to "responsible for announcing" and I'm up for this rewording as well. —Aichon— 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise on that provided that you become a sysop again. ;-p -MHSstaff 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am now unwilling to compromise. :P —Aichon— 22:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Went with this. Both of it. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)