UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Promotion Procedure

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)

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)