FFWiki forum logo.png
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[edit source]

Technobliterator.png

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 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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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.

{{{2}}}

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.

{{{2}}}

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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?--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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 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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

BlueHighwind TA.png

Minimum requirements discussion[edit source]

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

Point 1[edit source]

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 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)
  • Support. Gets a bit cheeky if you start punching above your weight, and anyhoo I think this is how we've always done it, more as an unspoken rule. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 12:58, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I wrote it. --BlueHighwind 15:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We only broke this once, when we had to before Designer existed, and have no intention of doing it again anyway. (No, JBed applying for sysop does not count as breaking this rule, he's already considered by staff to be a mod because of ILHI). -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 20:48, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If someone wants to justify why they would be a good admin when they're not a mod, or not a good bcrat when they're only a mod, I say we should let them. If not then I guess I'll have to be accepting that mod position unless being a spiritual mod still counts. JBed (talk) 21:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Fairly obvious rule. See new forum. — YuanSalut 06:10, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Point 2[edit source]

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, when a user is also able to prove they have been editing actively for a good length of time, disregarding the first edit like Techno says. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 13:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd say that the user wishing to become a Staff member should be active up to 3 months before his/her nomination. (In other words: nominating yourself after at least three months of continuous editing – there shouldn't be need for the nominee to make gazillions of edits every day, just some every now and then, more than just 2 or 3 times a week would be nice – it's okay for you to nominate yourself for a Staff member). So yep, an occasional editor wouldn't be much helpful IMO, so an occasional editor shouldn't be really relied on.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 13:08, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I also wrote this one. --BlueHighwind 15:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. "the date of your first edit" is fine, if someone tries to take advantage of that, they'll get rejected for not being active. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 20:48, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Though if point 1 goes through, you'll only be able to nominate yourself for one position ("any position"?) anyway. :p — YuanSalut 06:10, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Point 3[edit source]

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as I believe this is the method being used with Techno on his recent non-promotion to admin and I can see it working with anyone. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 13:03, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Wrote this one too. --BlueHighwind 15:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what staff already mean if they tell you to get more experience and apply again, although before we've had to make them wait more than 3 months. Also Techno's change should be implemented, although I would have allowed applying for different positions no matter what it said -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 21:40, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and further support to Techno's addition of "same position". This or 6 months, fine with me. JBed (talk) 21:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: A lock-out period is a decent idea. I would lean towards a slightly longer one, myself. — YuanSalut 06:10, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for the same position (as I amended the RfS draft to indicate). If someone's a stellar mod, there's no reason to hold them back from being a designer/bot user or being made an admin. C A T U S E 21:42, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Point 4[edit source]

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A good Staff member should have some decent Wiki "CV" so we know s/he will keep peace here. And yes, no need to rely on editcount; sure, there are people here with gazillions of good edits and lots of experience for our Wiki, but the people who contribute with (much) lower editcount, but still meeting our guidelines are also good candidates for the Staff. So yeah, Wiki "CV" would be a good thing to see from our future Staff members.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 13:00, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We often see on user pages lists of what that particular user is working on and what they think they have contributed to the wiki (I'm guilty of this) and it's a great way of seeing just what that user can offer. If they are able to identify their achivements to us, I'm all for making this a rule. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 13:04, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm pretty sure this one is mine too. --BlueHighwind 15:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose.
    • We've never had to before.
    • Special:Contributions exists, is already a "Wiki CV" or whatever the hell you want to call it, and even has the bonus of putting the bad things you've done on display for us, instead of us just relying on your word that you're a perfect editor.
    • If you're so unknown to the userbase that nobody can vouch for your good contributions and you have to offer this list of achievements so we know who you are you're unlikely to get the position anyway.
    • RULES DO NOT STOP IDIOTS FROM DOING IDIOTIC THINGS. Seriously. Stop with that "how to be a wikistaff" argument. It's immensely flawed, because you're assuming anybody who would ask that question would read the rules in the first place. They don't. "Gee, SCM, why did my vote in the DNC disappear?" How about you read the rules and find out. No? You're just going to do the same thing next week? Even after being pointed to the rules that explain how to use your signature? OK then, you can keep having your vote deleted. The same thing will apply here, and we'll deal with it the same way, because you can't write a magic rule that stops idiots from being idiots.
It's completely unnecessary. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 20:48, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards oppose: We've already decided that "important additions or improvements" aren't actually what get you mod or admin rights. One does not deserve admin for their contributions, they get it if they would need the tools and can be trusted with them. So wording needs to be changed at very least. Though I still think saying what you've done would make your nomination better, I'm not full oppose mainly because last time people looked at my contribs and decided all my recent contribs amounted to forums and module. Which is true enough: recently. Highlighting one's owns efforts seems like it would still be useful. JBed (talk) 21:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Our wiki isn't that large - active staff members will be familiar with what a prospective staff member has done. Obviously, you will explain why you feel you are deserving of a promotion in your nomination, so there doesn't need to be a strict guideline. Furthermore, some people do a lot of work across many areas (e.g. wikignoming), rather than a project which is easy to point out. — YuanSalut 06:10, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on several grounds. Most importantly, as Yuan said, if people can't name your contributions on the drop of a hat, you probably aren't very active (I, for one, make an effort to know what people, especially non staff, do around here -- CrappyScrap is the Battles guy, mecorx is our translator, Crystal Tear is a Fabula Nova editor, and so on). Moreover, not removing bad noms because it looks like elitism is the least of our worries. I've had to be a dick to anons before, plus we have stuff like the admin lab (and, yes, the Dungeons) that definitely comes off as elitist, even if it has a reason to exist. And, really, I've edited the wiki before at 2 in the morning butt-naked, I'm not too worried about the staff's "image" or whatever. We don't ask for money or government jobs or sexual favors, all I want from the anons is the same thing I try to give them: improvements to the wiki. And, of course, staff rights should have nothing to do with contributions and everything to do with practical use for the rights. People should be able to explain why they want rights. C A T U S E 21:42, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Point 5[edit source]

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.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 12:01, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Partly support. I would state that the blockable offence could result in a variation of how long you must wait until you can be nominated. Three months might be too harsh in some cases, or in others not enough. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 13:05, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. And yup, this one is mine. --BlueHighwind 15:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh. Not really concerned about the length of the lockout here, if it's particularly bad we can bring it up anyway. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 20:48, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Let's not say a user can't be an admin because of the choice of one person (the blocker). If the block had merit then I'm sure people will take it into consideration, but give people the ability to judge for themselves. I've netted three blocks in my time, all blocks the action-inappropriate response from a single admin. JBed (talk) 21:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't see a reason for having a strict rule about this. If you're blocked for poor behaviour of some sort, then that poor behaviour will affect how people view your nomination, not the block itself. — YuanSalut 06:10, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever. How often does this even happen? A block from 2 years back against JBed was brought up against him, but that's a little more than 3 months, yes? (And it wasn't even about the block itself -- it was that he was edit warring (I think?). No other admin would've blocked him for edit warring, they would've just protected the page and moved on, so even if the time period wasn't ridiculous this would be a moot point regardless). Looking at the block log, and ignoring trolling during the LP and April Fool's, the last regular user who was blocked was Jeandeve, in 2013, and anyone who goes around calling people "hypocrite tier cuntish turds" could never be effective mods anyways. Zeta Nova was blocked in 2011 for trolling Shinra News. So this rule will never come up practically. C A T U S E 21:42, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

General discussion[edit source]

I would just like to bring attention to the fact that both Point 1 and Point 2 have been broken in the past. For the record, of course.

For point 1, let us turn to the case of Bluesey, who was promoted without actually being a mod. Granted, this was before designer rights, which may have been more fitting anyway. Another example would be JBed, who has never nominated himself for modship before adminship (and I agree with his decision to do so, because of his previous tenure).

For Point 2, turn to the case of Xenomic, who was promoted to modship in just under 3 months. ScatheMote 17:47, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

As you said, Bluestar's promotion to admin predates the Designer right existing. He also doesn't have a lot of contributions to the mainspace either, had the Designer right existed back then, I'm sure that's what he would have gotten instead. Regarding JBed, he already has been a mod, just not on his current account. Bare in mind JBed also hasn't been promoted to adminship, so it's not a rule that's been broken yet.
3 months can be a general guideline. If it's just under as you say, then I think it's safe to say it can be broken in some cases where their contributions have been exceptional.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 17:56, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Response to SCM: I'm not sure you've understood me on one front, that being that I'm not putting the rule because I hope it'll stop "how to be a wikistaff" in future. If you're thinking I'm only using that one, it happened again recently, it's not a rare thing. I'm not asking for rules to stop them from having the nomination, I'm asking for the rule to empower people to remove it. In fact, I'm asking for it for the exact reasons you outlined in your post! The minimum requirements is a filter. If someone can't display at least 2 things they've done for the wiki, and that is evident in their nomination, then we should allow any of our userbase to revert the edit. If the rule doesn't exist, then it's much more debatable as to when they can revert the edit or not, and can result in conflicts. Also, I don't know why "never had this before" is a problem? I would agree with your point about Special:Contributions. But the idea, again, is that if a user can't explain on their self-nomination two things they've done, or has failed to, then they aren't allowed in. If they can, then they can be considered.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 20:58, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Because you're setting up a double standard. If this rule were always in place, nearly every application in the last few years would have been rejected, and I do not see why we should make the applications harder/more detailed than they were for the current staffers (the other 4 I've supported in part because we pretty much already follow those guidelines anyway). You're asking us to adopt tougher standards, because you can't trust us to figure out what's a shit nomination without it. That's ridiculous, it's always been blatantly obvious when an application is serious and good or a joke/just plain bad, and I'll tell you right now, it has nothing to do with how much the user talks about themselves. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 21:47, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
While I was writing a response to you, I actually begun to realize what you're saying, and I'm starting to agree with you...anyway, it wasn't about not trusting you, the admins, in fact it's not about anyone on the wiki in particular, it's just about empowering anyone who knows how this place runs to remove that. When you have this rule to site, you avoid conflicts, and possibly avoid issues of it seeming elitist for someone to remove a nomination because they don't think it's good enough, a new, ambitious user doesn't know they're being stupid. The idea is that if you remove it because they don't follow a rule then you stop it having to reach the crats and stop said young, ambitious user from receiving a Nalbina Dungeons-esque fate.
But again, I am starting to change my view. Maybe make it less a min requirement and more a strict one? As JBed mentions, sometimes recent contributions don't mean everything, it depends...--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 22:00, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
About the dungeons, that's more for things that are actually funny, we don't throw random bad posts in there just for being bad. Not any more, anyway. We really should be archiving every application for record's sake, even if it's embarrassing, but I am OK with just trashing ones that are obvious garbage. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:17, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't seem that many people have the same mindset as me where we can let the people decide case-by-case what is appropriate. Eh, okay. JBed (talk) 21:26, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Response to JBed: a joke block is just one where the admins are clearly having fun, ie, not a block for a serious offense. All three of my blocks are joke blocks.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 22:00, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and my three blocks were jokes too, even if the person blocking me didn't think they were. Your blocks weren't for blockable actions, nor were mine.
You see, the point I'm making is rather than have this classification of blocks, let the users decide whether a block is worth stopping a user get promoted. JBed (talk) 22:05, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.