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

Main header

Essentially a copy of UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure.
Original policy 2 and 3 would have passed under current policy (that got rid of the 20 votes minimum), but didn't, as the 20 votes rule was still enforced. Thus, I feel that the wiki has changed enough to make it sensible to resubmit these policies.
Policy 1 isn't included in this overhaul, as it wouldn't have passed under current policy, so that I feel that it would be a cheap tactic to try again to get it through without other significant changes having happened. However, the slight wording change from Policy 1 is included, as it didn't seem to draw as much as flak as the idea to raise the bar for new sys-ops. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. It doesn't really need changing. Show me a sysop who used the "I am really strong in one criteria but not the other" card. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ross. 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll go read your bid. Frankly, lets get rid of the whole sentence. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, reading your successful bid you don't mention that at all. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't, but it was remarked on that I didn't really have the established standing usually warranted. I'd say I'd be the closest runner to the leeway clause in a while. Me or Vapor. 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed that that clause was made to push in Swiers if he ever returned, even if he was inactive. :D --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically, its a rooster, swiers, etc clause for those with excellent wiki-fu. The current sysop team have formatting skills the range from the sublime to the ridiculous. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Even so, Rooster passed the criteria by leaps and bounds. I'm such a rooster fanboy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the leeway clause should stay, just for exceptional cases as Rooster. I'd vouch for him in a heartbeat whenever some serious coding empowered by op buttons is needed, despite his lack of inactivity. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact this needs to be discussed for 3 days, policy 2 and 3 could go up for voting right now. As for 1, I don't think it really matters, though the idea of leeway should stay in one form or another. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

3 in 1

Please get out of the habit of putting up 3 policies for voting on the one page. There is no need of for it, it just creates needless confusion, and TL;DR problems. Having to jump up a long page, and then back down to find the right voting section for each respective "mini-policy" just means people will not bother, or now that their abstention could mean policies get up with minimal support, just vote NO on stuff like this, where it isn't fixing anything that is obviously broken -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:29 24 January 2011 (BST)

Probably easiest to lose proposal one, (because its common sense to most people) and incorporate points two and three into a single policy as the changes themselves are both generally supported and linked to each other. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a leftover from the original proposal, when the criteria met a lot of hostililty, while the remainder was well-received. Now that the criteria are gone, it would probably be worth it to put everything together into one single policy once more. I'll think about it and give this another half day or so to draw in opinions. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That was the reason this bloody thing didn't pass last time anyway, -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have now rolled all three proposals into one policy. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All three of them?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all three. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Three - Two - One - Thunderbirds Are Go!

I feel this is ready now to be kicked off.

• Boxy's multi-policy objection has been dealt with.
• Ross' has proposed to get completely rid of the leeway clause, but he seems to be alone in this, and doing so would also get into the way of being able to promote some exceptional folks as Rooster.

If you feel like I've forgotten you, or that you have another point, use your chance soon. Else, I'll kick this of on tuesday or wednesday. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

. Seems fair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering Policy One wouldn't have passed last time - even under the current system - it might be best to take it out so that we can pass the other two. Don't know.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The core of Policy 1 isn't in it - those were the numbers changes. The only survivor of policy 1 is the leeway rewording change, which is purely aesthetical and hasn't drawn flak. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Fab. I just read above that you'd integrated all 3 policies, so I assumed it was all of each of them. I see no problems then - All steam ahead.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd. As soon as the 20 votes rule is gone, the policy gains 20 votes within just two days. Or maybe it's because it's massively trimmed to one big policy. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from main page

1. 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)

   Bids that bad usually get three "vouches" as jokes anyway and therefore go down the page anyway, and again, are pulled early anyway. It really is redundant in every sense of the word -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Take that out, and it reduces the validity of removing any bids early -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:43 3 February 2011 (BST)

   But... There was no validity to begin with because it was always put in the 'serious candidates' section anyway, that's my point... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Only if they can get 3 muppets -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:51 3 February 2011 (BST)

   Ugh.. You're really gonna make me trawl through examples just to show you what I mean? 1, 2 are good examples. Completely non-serious. Woot's ones that were labelled as vandalism (and were deleted as such, CBF going through history for evidence) had more than enough non-sockpuppet vouches to count, they did, it was cycled early and labelled as vandalism. But according to policy he had enough community support to be taken seriously, right? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Woot may have had 3 pseudo-vouchers, but lacked credibility in pretty much all other areas. He's not relevant. That requirement is designed to give us an out on bid like these 2 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:33 3 February 2011 (BST)

   I feel like this was the kind of policy that shouldn't have been a policy but rather a discussion on A/P. ^ Perhaps "Indication of trust in the candidate" would be better defined differently? But it is a little silly as it is, if it stays. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   Indication of trust is already more than covered by the crat discussion in the end (which should take number and sources of vouches and againsts strongly into account). Jerrel would already have been futile and eligible for early cycling for massively failing in all other criteria. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

   "Desire to become a System Operator" should be perhaps even more obvious, either by making the bid or accepting it. It's rather self-evident. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)