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)

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)