Forum:A New Staff Promoting Paradigm

Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > A New Staff Promoting Paradigm

This is a continuation of Forum:Forum Returns: Staff Discussion 2014#Comments, which has been moved here so we can close staff nominations. Anyway, pretty much everyone agrees that we should change staff nominations to an ongoing thing instead of once a year, so this is to determine how we'll do it. Current proposal is on the other side of this link.

Discuss. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:33, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

		23:37, October 18, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		I stand by my current criteria, howevrr, I will settle for BH's 4 plus an additional: "You cannot have been blovked within 2 months of your nomination". Should be enough to keep the troll nominations out while still not preventing valid nominees.

First rule of RFA: You do not talk if nom returns false then cannot renom for that role or higher in the next 3/6 (whatev') months. JBed (talk) 23:40, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

The rules are okay with me, seem to be reasonable. Also, if I understand JBed's language (he's starting to talk like a machina) then it means something like "if it is concluded by the community that the nominee is not fit for the applied position, s/he has to wait n months before applying again." If so, that I also think it's okay for it to be included in the rules. And relating to that 'blocked' thing: three months would probably be better. But I think we should just choose one value for the month to be applied to all month-based rules, for simplicity reasons.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 00:22, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

No reason there needs to be N month consistency. I accept their arbitraritude, but that's the nature of rules. Just pick a value. Six months for new noms felt right to me. Two months after banning should be enough. But we don't need to argue what the number is, as long as we accept there needs to be these numbers. --BlueHighwindツ 01:03, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously from discussion in the previous forum and the IRC earlier today, I am more in favour of a rules-light system. But, if we must go with Techno's system, I must make a few points.

If rejected overall, the nominee is then archived. That nomination can no longer be given for the same right for 3 months.

A nomination will always be archived, unless it is a blatant troll nomination, or does not meet the minimum requirements, in which case the edit adding it will be reverted.

That phrasing is pretty rules-lawyerable. Only archived nominations result in the lockout, but bad nominations don't get archived. Any rejected nomination should result in a lockout. Or a temp block if some idiot is trying to abuse the system, which effectively serves the same purpose.

If you have a wealthy length of experience on another wiki, then you will still be considered, as long as you can prove you will apply it to the Final Fantasy Wiki.

Strike this, please. The best way to prove that you'll apply your experience here is to actually use it here, which makes the point moot.

If your editcount is high in any one of these spaces, there is a very strong chance you could be promoted.

Please don't bring edit counts into this. It's just a number, and while we will likely reject someone if their edit count is too lopsided towards userspace, we don't want to give the impression that big edit count = promotion.

Edits solely to the DNC, forumspace and your userspace are not accepted as valid.

Blanket rejection on forumspace is a bad thing, as, you know, the entire point of Rin's is official wiki business. We shouldn't discount forumspace entirely because to do so would ignore the user's role in discussing and forming policy, which tends to be a pretty important thing for admins.

You must have a need and desire for the user of admin powers.

This one's just me being a pedant, but if you don't desire the position, you're not applying in the first place. :P

Also I think we should point out that acknowledgements are typically the result of failed mod applications (usually without further deliberation, even) and not just something you apply for. Well, I guess you could apply for it, but what's the point? Do people really want the little cactuar icon that badly? -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 11:41, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

But should a rejected troll nomination be put up on display in the archives, to say "this is what happens to people who don't read the requirements"? It's as cruel a fate as putting them in the Nalbina Dungeons, when often the people are innocent, they just made a huge slip up..

Experience on another wiki, I can agree with getting rid of that one.

It's the percentages, not the number. It's like you said, if someone has more edits in userspace, then they are probably not fit for a promotion.

But if someone edits only forumspace, then that just shows they are all talk and no action, which isn't really a staff quality, is it? I don't say discount them entirely, I just say if you have no real edits elsewhere, there's no point.

Well, yeah, fair enough, but if someone nominates someone else for admin powers, and that person has no need, they should probably be turned down.

You can't nominate yourself for acknowledgement, only someone else.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 11:55, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

No, don't archive the bad nominations, just note that they aren't allowed to reapply for however long. I still really think you're overestimating the amount of bad applications we'll get, though. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 12:16, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Definitely note they're not allowed to reply. RE: overestimating: in my time editing, on wikis with similar application pages, I've seen about 6 or 7 applications from people who were illegible for so many reasons it's absurd, very enthusiastic but also had no real contributions to the wiki. This is the largest wiki I have ever edited by far. I'm willing to assume that, being as this is about 4 times larger than any wiki I edited before, we will get 4 times that many. I don't think it's worth the bureaucrats' time.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:20, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything SCM said, except the whole lockout thing where I don't see the big deal. I'm going to throw my vote in the "strongly object" pile for ever mentioning editcount or edit distribution. JBed (talk) 12:02, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, editcount has little contribution, and useful edits can come from every namespace (if they're not, does this mean we're discouraging userspace sandboxes? if so...why?). Only totally useless edits are the DNC, and even then not really if you're Jim, Scathe, or SCM (who are already sysops, so that's a moot point, but still).

Proof of ability and understanding of HTML and CSS, or at least an ability to learn them quickly.

You can learn in your userspace. Don't risk breaking the wiki by having someone who doesn't know what they're doing in mwspace plz. Also, it's not just HTML and CSS, it's about MediaWiki-space as a whole. Do you know what some of the sys messages do? No? Then don't have the ability to edit the sys messages.

There are no additional minimum requirements, but if you have significant contributions to your name, you are very unlikely to be opposed.

Still dunno what the point of nominating yourself for acknowledgment is.

Also, policy about the purpose/number of crats would be helpful, because four years later I'm still not sure what we want them to do. C A T U S E 18:29, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have changed the RfS a little. Things that were previously "minimum requirements" are now "general guidelines" instead, and the 5 which we agreed on are the guidelines.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 18:24, October 19, 2014 (UTC)