UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | 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. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 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.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:57, 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.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:57, 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.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:40, 28 November 2010
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)
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.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
