View source for UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul 0.2

{{Protect}}
meh --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 04:59, 4 May 2008 (BST)

peachy. and pineappley, too. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:49, 4 May 2008 (BST)

== Nominations ==

Can we state that a candidate can only nominate themselves, to avoid people being put up for voting who have no desire to become candidates? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:02, 4 May 2008 (BST)
:That's a good idea, I think, because it'll halt attacks thrown at those people who nominate themselves.  Often, a reason for an '''against''' is given as "nobody nominated you / you nominated yourself".  Ergo, if it's not allowed to nominate people, that accusation holds no weight. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 12:30, 4 May 2008 (BST)
:I also agree that's a good idea, however I'd like to see what many other people think. How many people say in the last ten promotions were nominated by another party? --{{User:Dux Ducis/sig}} 12:42, 4 May 2008 (BST)
:I'd prefer it if you could only be nominated by an other person, actually. Modesty is a virtue. --[[User talk:Grarr|Grarr]] 16:36, 4 May 2008 (BST)
::Perhaps it could be a requirement that the nominee has agreed to accept (via their talk page) before a bid is started by a third party? I see no problem with people being nominated by others, and frankly I take little notice of "votes" when the only reason is "''you nominated yourself so I wont vouch for you''" <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 16:48 4 May 2008 (BST)</small>
:::Seconded for Boxy. We can curb the number of crap entries for positions if we just keep the current system, but allow the other to occur. However, agreeing on a talk page might not be so great, as there are so many people who potentially fill the requirements. Could a specific page be delegated for entries, monitored by the current bureaucrats or something? Just a simple signature of the party or parties nominating and accepting the nomination should be fine, right? --[[User:Vandurn|Vandurn]] 05:04, 5 May 2008 (BST)

:I think people are reluctant to nominate others because of the potential criticisms they may receive. The commenting process may be an unpleasant experience. (Yes, I know, sysops should be able to take criticism, but it's one thing to choose to put yourself through the process, and another to push someone else into it.) --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:39, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Eeeeh? Don't overcomplicate. Just leave everything as it is with one exception: a person has to accept a nomination before it goes to voting... All you need is one person to nominate you. That nominator asks if you're interested on your talk page, and you say yes or no... There is no need for a new page to discuss the matter. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:50, 5 May 2008 (BST)

:This all sounds awesome to me. --{{User:Rogue Sergeant/sig}} 04:31, 6 May 2008 (BST)
::I think me and WanYao are entirely in agreement. On this matter --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:53, 6 May 2008 (BST)

== Activity Requirement ==

I think 3 months is still too low, basically implying that you just need to be marginally above average to be a sysop. How about something in the region of 4-6? --[[User talk:Grarr|Grarr]]
:I don't think it's something you should put a hard and fast figure on at all. If you haven't been here long, you've got to have really done a lot, and a good job at it, before many people will vouch for you. Let people decide on an individual basis if they are willing to vouch for someone who's only been here a couple of months <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 16:43 4 May 2008 (BST)</small>
::You should probably go read the discussion of the last time this policy was submitted - it was originally at 6 months, but reduced to 3 due to popular concensus. --{{User:Dux Ducis/sig}} 20:51, 4 May 2008 (BST)
:::Oh well. Sounds ok otherwise. --[[User talk:Grarr|Grarr]] 21:50, 4 May 2008 (BST)
::::Is this dropped quite yet? I do think that Grarr has a point. While activity is great, are we not also investing our own time into this? If the nominee in question doesn't want to go in for the long haul, then why should they be allowed to continue? 3 months really is a cakewalk if you're maintaining a group or even a few alts, in some cases you might not even hit 41. --[[User:Vandurn|Vandurn]] 05:08, 5 May 2008 (BST)
:::::Just have it read ''"more than 3 months"'' ... simple change that makes a big difference. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:51, 5 May 2008 (BST)

== Grandfather Clause? ==

While it would be ridiculous to have sysops have to go through the whole process again to get elected, i'd quite like to read what they write for the Q & A as many of them have either been here since before my time or were elected without much discussion of substance, more a popularity contest. Regarding this policy, sounds great to me.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:29, 5 May 2008 (BST)
:You can't really escape any "popularity contest" thing, but maybe a board should be made if this seems like a problem? It doesn't to me, but I haven't really seen any major stuff happening for a while. Less drama. I'm not sure what this is asking for, though. --[[User:Vandurn|Vandurn]] 22:00, 5 May 2008 (BST)
::Just that the existing sysops answer the Q & A thing, purely for interest and so wiki users can get to know them and maybe have less of the clique of sysops view.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:33, 6 May 2008 (BST)

==Edit count increase==
I'm not really a fan of using edit counts as an attempted measure of quality. I can see a logic in requiring enough edits so that there's sufficient evidence to make a reliable decision one way or the other, but to my mind 500 edits is enough for that already, and doesn't need increased. It would be preferable not to rule out good candidates unnecessarily. Plus, requiring a large edit quantity tends to encourage people to be noisy or to make a greater number of low-quality edits. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 14:39, 6 May 2008 (BST)
:I'm not in favor of using the sheer number of edits either. I would hate to think that people that were suggestion whores or just fiddled with Danger Reports or Suburb News would some how be considered worthy. Why not make the candidate provide links
# to show actual intelligent contributions? 
# They should have edits ranging from good suggestions (not just weapons or gear but actual smart game play ideas - showing they are active UD players - and they don't have any original suggestions then they should provide a link with them adding more to an idea than number crunching). 
# They should have some creative location descriptions or perhaps group pages or ideas. 
# They must have updated a few pages that use existing templates to show they are familiar with wiki formatting. 
# They should also provide a link where they handled a conflict with another user and how they resolved it - or have them suggest ways they would handle situations like that in the future. <br>Since a large part of the sysop position may involve ruffling feathers it would be very important to see how they handle criticism, trolling, and see how well they take responsibility for their own actions. 
# They should also provide a brief overview of their voting record on policies and a few suggestions.  I would like to see how they defend or support their opinions. <br>It might sound like a lot of work, but getting to be a sysop shouldn't be a popularity contest. You should have edits to all of these things mentioned if you are serious about contributing to the wiki community. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]'''  <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 20:44, 5 May 2008 (BST)
::Some issues; making good suggestions does not really correlate with being a good sysop. Neither does creative location descriptions or group pages or ideas. Actually, a sysop does not have to be creative or a good player. It's a ''wiki'' job. It's enough if they know the basics about the game. Like has been said in the past, the position is comparable to a janitor. They fix broken things, [[A/D|empty]] the [[A/SD|trash]] and [[A/VB|kick out trouble-makers]]. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 13:15, 6 May 2008 (BST)
:::If you aren't passionate about the game then why would you devote time to the wiki about the game? You want people that actually enjoy UD to take care of the official wiki about it rather than people that just want power on the net. If they only "empty the trash" that's just giving them power over people that are actually interested in the game. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]'''  <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 16:25, 6 May 2008 (BST)
::::Passion does not require skill or creativity. Neither does enjoying the game. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 15:35, 7 May 2008 (BST)
:::::Then all you are left with are people that want power. That's not good. We already have too many sysops abusing their power as it is.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]'''  <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 16:20, 7 May 2008 (BST)
::::::Erm, no. Then all we are left with are people who are passionate and enjoy the game, even if they are not creative or particularly skilled in it. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 16:26, 7 May 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::::[[image:Example13.jpg]]<br>
:::::::::::::Like this? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]'''  <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 16:52, 7 May 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::::Like [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amateur this]. --{{User:Midianian/Sig}} 17:34, 7 May 2008 (BST)

DCC makes some good points in quite a few places, like 4, 5, and 6. But then again, people should be looking through a runner's contributions anyways, not just basing it off their bid. But still, fairly good points are made.--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 21:08, 5 May 2008 (BST)
:I'm aiming for 1,000,000 edits before I nominate myself - it's the only way to be sure. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 20:01, 5 May 2008 (BST)
:Unfortunately, people don't read edits. So, how about we make applicants provide links to at least two edits to back up at least four of those headers, and make it clear that, obviously, the more evidence the better a chance they have.
::Remember #99 the edit count is there to weed out the newbies to the wiki who don't have much of a clue. Other than that, it's down to what their standing is within the community, and the quality of their contributions. Nominations don't win through purely edit counts. --{{User:Dux Ducis/sig}} 12:44, 6 May 2008 (BST)
:::''standing in the community'' so they win by a popularity contest? That's not any better. And why should they have "quality contributions" if all they are only "janitors"?<br> 
:::No, you want sysops that are more than that. You want the "trusted users" to actually inspire the newbies to contribute great things and by helpful and creative in the community. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]'''  <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 16:42, 6 May 2008 (BST)
::::I'm not at all sure the edit count needs to be altered at all. I can only remember one promotion case that failed before it began due to lack of edits. What does upping the limit serve? In my opinion if you've made 500 good edits, that are for the beinfit of the wiki or helping people out, demonstrating your knowlege of how to edit or proving your trustworthiness is it realy any different from having 1000 edits to say that? I guess what I'm saying is that we should realy be focusing on quality of edits over quantity - the only real purpose that edit numbers seem to serve is to make sure the promotions page isn't clogged up with a whole bunch of new users with no chance of proving themselves with the number of edits they've provided. Now the time spent in the community however seems to be very much more important. And yes, I agree DDC - you want sysops to have a vested interest in the wiki - not just serving as janitors or to grab power over other users on the net for fun.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 16:58, 6 May 2008 (BST)