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)

Old discussion

		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)

I think those designer minimum requirements guidelines are there to justify Techno being a designer rather than being what we would normally expect of a designer. I'll be honest, I believed Techno knew more than he did when I gave him my support for designer. JBed (talk) 19:14, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

No, I knew all the MediaWiki stuff, it was my CSS (and a chunk of my HTML when I think about it...) that was rusty.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 19:19, 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)

UPDATE 2: So, I thought about it again. And now I have just removed guidelines altogether since they were all pretty silly and/or obvious. We can, as JBed has said, judge them anyway and those 5 min requirements are enough to empower us to remove the troll nominations as it is. So, is everyone fine with making this official?-- Technobliterator ^T_C 09:21, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Scathe's amendments re: poetry. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 08:08, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

For a more serious response, I'm not sure if we need the "list some recent accomplishments" bit, mainly on the virtue that we've never had to before when doing staff promotions, but it's not a big enough deal for me to demand it be removed. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 19:32, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, I think we can all agree on BH's rules with that removed. C A T U S E 03:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I submit to this wiki belongs to me, you can cut that and everything should be fine. --BlueHighwindツ 03:59, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I still disagree with all the minimum requirements. The "3-month" period is fine, but it's mentioned in the section above min req anyway.

If we want to make this easier then we could literally just make a list of proposed min reqs, then put put these in tables where users can sign to agree or disagree for each one. That's the easiest way to do have the things that the people agree with, because I don't think discussing each individual one within a linear discussion is going to go anywhere. JBed (talk) 06:23, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there's an easier way if we just use normal headers. Anyways; I'll do that now, vote/discuss below.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Minimum requirements discussion

Post either Support or Oppose, your reason and your signature.

Point 1

You can only nominate yourself for one rank above your current status. If you are a regular user, you can nominate for mod; if you are mod, you can ask for admin. Other rights such as bot access and designer run separately.

• Support, this seems obvious. If someone has not proven they are trusted to be a mod, then giving them admin rights is a waste of time. I don't know a single user that has been promoted to admin before mod rights, it just seems unfair to let anyone skip it.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's actually normal to 'level up' one rank at a time.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 12:53, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Point 2=

You must have been a user on this wiki for a minimum of three months before you can nominate yourself for any position. That is counting from the date of your first edit.

• Support, except I wouldn't say "the date of your first edit". I have like 5 edits a few years back before I initially joined this wiki and I don't think I should count those as me being on the wiki. Maybe allow for some exceptions, particular bot rights or designer if they're really trusted, not otherwise.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Point 3

You can only nominate yourself once every three months for a position.

• I'd change to "the same position", but otherwise, Support. If you're rejected, and it's because of some issues with personality flaws that could be fixed somewhere down the line, or experience or w/e, then three months is very reasonable. I'd only change to "the same position" because someone rejected for designer doesn't have to be a bad moderator.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Point 4

When nominating yourself, include at least two or three examples of important additions or improvements that you have made to the wiki. Upon making a new nomination, you should have at least one or two new example(s) of recent positive contributions.

• Strongly support, just because we haven't required it before doesn't mean we shouldn't now. This is the best for keeping out the bad "Sir, how to be a wikistaff???????" nominations. They have to be two very good improvements or you've clearly not done enough yet, so not "i corrected grammar issues on two pages im so good xDDDD" or anything. Bigger projects, this means we don't measure contributions on editcount. If you've reformatted tables on multiple pages, or wrote one article, we don't need to measure your number of edits, just the strength of both. It's not that difficult. And no, I don't think bot rights or designer rights should be exceptions, if you haven't done enough we have no way of trusting you and you should let someone else do that.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Point 5

You must not have been blocked within three months of your nomination.

• Support, this is obvious, unless it's a joke block like the ones I recieved a while back (thanks Drake, Scathe and Tia :c), if you have been blocked then it's not far fetched to assume you have done something wrong. If you're long standing enough to fulfil the above 4, you will have received a warning before your block, and that in itself shows you have ignored the warning whether or not you disagree with it and have been blocked for a good reason.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)