FANDOM


  • Cheatcodechamp
    Cheatcodechamp closed this thread because:
    Consensus reached. CT approved.
    00:46, April 4, 2015

    Hello again

    For a long time now, users can only have a chance to become a staff member if they are nominated into the position by an existing staff member. This applies to Chat mods, Forum mods, Patrollers, and Administrators. The two ranks exempt from this are Bots and the News Team.

    This is a flawed and strict policy. For multiple reasons, though I'll just list the ones I can think of:

    • We shouldn't come to candidates, candidates should come to us. This means that staff shouldn't nominate users as this is a much slower process. Users should be able to apply whenever they choose to, so long as the follow all the requirements for their selected rank.
    • This is an uncommon system, many other wikis and websites utilize the process of having users applying by themselves.
    • In the event that there should be a short amount of staff, users should be free to apply in order to make up for the missing ranks.
    • Users can't ask to be nominated, they have to strive to prove they can to the staff which just makes it harder to gain more staff.
    • Some users may not be interested in becoming staff even if they have been nominated.

    There are likely more reasons that I can't currently think of. The reason I am creating this consensus is because we have a lack of staff and the process of becoming one is slow and flawed. It is also outdated like some of the other policies and needs to be changed. In one case when the "Exodus" of staff occurred, 3 of our admins left. Sajuuk then attempted to create a Staff Application for administrator instead of receiving a nomination. He was banned for this (though later unbanned) and his application was closed for multiple reasons. With this incident, many users believed that the way of becoming a staff should be fixed. Due to the circumstances, this attempt was justified even if it violated the policies. Users should not have to violate the policies in order to become a staff member, hence the consensus.

    Administrator applications should be allowed, but only restricted to existing staff members. Reason being is that users should have a sense of being a staff member and the other staff evaluating how they act with their current flags. Bureaucrat applications should be in the same place, but restricted to current admins.

      Loading editor
    • Absolutely totally 100% agreed with all of this. Last year, it made sense to close down nominations for a while, since it was being unnecessarily used by people who didn't really need additional rights. Presently, we have one patroller, 3 sysops and a small number of other mods) and nobody can get made staff member unless another staff member makes the nomination, a slow and detrimental process. If a repeat of the issue with Ebony/Ghost/Tomb happens again, we will be staffless and the whole issue of users nominating themselves to get rights will repeat itself: we really don't want that happening again, so let's make a change so that users can nominate themselves for any additional rights (exc. sysop but case-by-case exceptions should be made, per what it says on the sysop page).

      Let's put this in perspective. I have well over the minimum requirements to be allowed to have additional rights, such as patroller, chat mod or even sysop: the current system means I will never get these rights, even though it's obvious I would make use of them appropriately. People have already noticed I've been requesting lots of threads to be highlighted and for sysops to add things that only sysops can add. I should be fully within my right to nominate myself and let the community decide my fate, not the other way around.

      I also agree on the point of sysop applications and the majority of sysops should be pooled from the current staff base, but there should be case-by-case exceptions: for example, someone who is extremely good at coding (and has proven themselves to be proficient with coding in CSS/JS/creating abuse filters/templates etc) or needs particular access to something that only sysops have access to, should be given the option to just become a sysop if they're clearly responsible enough to not deliberately sabotage the site.

      On another note: the system should change from one of voting in support/oppose for someone to one where you give rationales about the user in a discussion thread in the forums. I've never liked the idea of a user's application being decided on popular vote, it was wrong for a lot of reasons in the past (and why we ended up with so many staff members who didn't do that much to improve the site).

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      On another note: the system should change from one of voting in support/oppose for someone to one where you give rationales about the user in a discussion thread in the forums. I've never liked the idea of a user's application being decided on popular vote, it was wrong for a lot of reasons in the past (and why we ended up with so many staff members who didn't do that much to improve the site).

      Voting varies per topic. For a consensus of a change or addition, people must give their ideas or improvements rather than just saying that they agree with what OP says.

      Consensus for demoting a user is different. Unlike changing something, a consensus against demoting a user will just result in the same thing - demotion or they keep their rights. When you suggest changing something, there are multiple ways it can be done unlike a consensus against a user. The same thing happens with staff or MOTM nominations, in the end it will only end to ways. Voting should only occur where there are only two options.

      Speaking of MOTM, it should stay the same. The end result is the person either becoming or not becoming MOTM.

        Loading editor
    • Emperor Jarjarkine
      Emperor Jarjarkine removed this reply because:
      Stupid and unusfull comment, i'll make a better one tomorrow.
      01:52, March 27, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • The Rim of the Sky wrote: Voting varies per topic. For a consensus of a change or addition, people must give their ideas or improvements rather than just saying that they agree with what OP says.

      I know. But my point is that voting only allows people to give weak or no reasoning for why they support something: in other words, there will inevitably be a swathe of posts that only contain either "support" or "oppose" with no reason for why.

      By focusing more on the reasoning, rather than the vote, a better consensus can be reached. Sometimes a vote should happen, but the vote shouldn't be the main factor in deciding consensus: the discussion with users should absolutely be more important imo. There's also the fact that voting has, in the past, created camps of users who hate on each other during the process and also only gives two viewpoints: there is no ability for compromises without starting a whole new discussion.

      Consensus for demoting a user is different. Unlike changing something, a consensus against demoting a user will just result in the same thing - demotion or they keep their rights. When you suggest changing something, there are multiple ways it can be done unlike a consensus against a user. The same thing happens with staff or MOTM nominations, in the end it will only end to ways. Voting should only occur where there are only two options.

      Like I said above, voting only gives two outcomes. In many cases, discussion can create better possibilities, everyone can give their opinion and a better consensus can be reached. Discussion also prevents user camps being generated from votes as well.

      Speaking of MOTM, it should stay the same. The end result is the person either becoming or not becoming MOTM.
      No issue with keeping MOTM the same here.
        Loading editor
    • You know I think this might work well. I was a user around the time when the applications were around for News Team, Chat & Forum Moderators and The reason it got removed was due to how users kept applying for staff despite not having the skills for it, and would get supported simply because no one in the community actively disliked them, however in our situation we might have better luck especially if we're low on staff.

      In addition, this might encourage other users to work harder on the Wiki since they feel like they might get "rewarded" so to speak with a position if they really try and act well. The nomination system was too rigid and the fact that only staff could do most of it, made it kind of undemocratic as well! I think this can work

        Loading editor
    • 2014 was single handedly fucked because of the nomination rule. Lets fix that while we can.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      The Rim of the Sky wrote: Voting varies per topic. For a consensus of a change or addition, people must give their ideas or improvements rather than just saying that they agree with what OP says.

      I know. But my point is that voting only allows people to give weak or no reasoning for why they support something: in other words, there will inevitably be a swathe of posts that only contain either "support" or "oppose" with no reason for why.

      By focusing more on the reasoning, rather than the vote, a better consensus can be reached. Sometimes a vote should happen, but the vote shouldn't be the main factor in deciding consensus: the discussion with users should absolutely be more important imo. There's also the fact that voting has, in the past, created camps of users who hate on each other during the process and also only gives two viewpoints: there is no ability for compromises without starting a whole new discussion.


      Consensus for demoting a user is different. Unlike changing something, a consensus against demoting a user will just result in the same thing - demotion or they keep their rights. When you suggest changing something, there are multiple ways it can be done unlike a consensus against a user. The same thing happens with staff or MOTM nominations, in the end it will only end to ways. Voting should only occur where there are only two options.

      Like I said above, voting only gives two outcomes. In many cases, discussion can create better possibilities, everyone can give their opinion and a better consensus can be reached. Discussion also prevents user camps being generated from votes as well.


      Speaking of MOTM, it should stay the same. The end result is the person either becoming or not becoming MOTM.
      No issue with keeping MOTM the same here.

      When voting on a staff application, there will only be two outcomes: the user either gets the flags or doesn't get the flags. Removing votes is utterly pointless, people can't suggest ideas or different ways to do something on a staff app i.e. "They should only get half the flags" or "they should get the flags but no coloured name". It makes no sense to remove votes.

      When you created a consensus against Jimeee you knew that there would only be two outcomes: he either loses his flags or keeps them. The first one happened as he resigned. You can't suggest an idea on how to do it differently like "he should only lose half his flags" or "he should only lose his flags for 2 weeks". Voting is a necessity in these cases.

        Loading editor
    • I guess that's true, but discussions should be preferred over voting though. Yes, in cases where there are only two outcomes, it might be preferable to support/oppose, but a discussion could prove more beneficial and provide better outcomes other than "they keep/lose their flags". Heck, discussions could result in new user group flags being created, or simply giving people a better way of contributing to a consensus.

      I'm not saying we should remove voting, but we should really reduce our reliance on it: in the consensus discussion I made to suggest we do more discussions, less voting, it was pointed out that straw polls are probably better to quickly get the consensus.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      I guess that's true, but discussions should be preferred over voting though. Yes, in cases where there are only two outcomes, it might be preferable to support/oppose, but a discussion could prove more beneficial and provide better outcomes other than "they keep/lose their flags". Heck, discussions could result in new user group flags being created, or simply giving people a better way of contributing to a consensus.

      I'm not saying we should remove voting, but we should really reduce our reliance on it: in the consensus discussion I made to suggest we do more discussions, less voting, it was pointed out that straw polls are probably better to quickly get the consensus.

      I'm only talking about voting in MOTM, Consensus against a user and Staff applications.

        Loading editor
    • The Rim of the Sky wrote: I'm only talking about voting in MOTM, Consensus against a user and Staff applications.

      I know that. MotM would probably be better off with voting, but consensus against staff should preferably be discussion first, voting second. All I'm saying is, you can vote in such discussions, but the focus of the end result should be about the rationales being provided by the community, not the count of support and oppose.

        Loading editor
    • Let's try and get off the topic of votes. We already had that argument. But this is an interesting proposition, Rim, and I think I like what you suggested. You're right in saying that this could help fill in our ranks, and this would be less strict. However, I hope the community's consensus would also be a factor in deciding their acceptance or denial, as we shouldn't just bring someone on who has a history of bad edits or something. That's just me, though.

        Loading editor
    • Madman97 wrote: Let's try and get off the topic of votes. We already had that argument. But this is an interesting proposition, Rim, and I think I like what you suggested. You're right in saying that this could help fill in our ranks, and this would be less strict. However, I hope the community's consensus would also be a factor in deciding their acceptance or denial, as we shouldn't just bring someone on who has a history of bad edits or something. That's just me, though.

      But why? Votes are a part of this discussion because votes are how people get rights on this wiki, so I see the discussion of voting being completely relevant to this thread. Right now, the "community consensus" you speak is voting, not discussion, which is something I'm trying to point out should be done the other way around because votes do not tell the whole story at all: essentially, rights are granted on popular vote, not a well reasoned discussion.

      In fact, what you've pointed out by discussing edits is another reason why a vote shouldn't be the main reason to promote a user. Discussion is king, voting is a side thing and it should not be the determinant factor in anything. It ain't a popularity contest :D

        Loading editor
    • There is usually a good reason why people vote for who they want. It is asked that they provide good reasoning, are they not? And I don't want to start something, but people can have a hard time changing their minds, especially when it comes to opinions on the internet, and most discussion will lead to the exact same place voting would be but it will have taken a lot longer than necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Madman97 wrote: There is usually a good reason why people vote for who they want. It is asked that they provide good reasoning, are they not? And I don't want to start something, but people can have a hard time changing their minds, especially when it comes to opinions on the internet, and most discussion will lead to the exact same place voting would be but it will have taken a lot longer than necessary.

      People are asked to do so, but nobody takes the time to actually moderate reasons and from what I've seen, even the bad reasons are accepted, all based on the voting template, which is wrong.

        Loading editor
    • Look, this isn't about voting, this is about Staff nominations. Voting applies to many other elements of the wiki, so I suggest you create a consensus of it seperately instead of discussing it here.

        Loading editor
    • Replying directly to the top thread, I would say it's a good idea. I don't have the time to write an essay, but I will later.

      -Fghfghfgh510, I didnt have time to sign in.

        Loading editor
    • I am going to highlight this, give it a day or so for others to voice their concerns.

      While I am going to avoid saying yes or no.  I want to give my reason why, and I hope you guys can understand.

      While I like the idea of people being able to apply for the role, the reason I am not to big on it is because of what I saw it do to a community. We didn't have to many editors to begin with, but the applying for rights got insane to a point I stopped even watching. To be fair, that wiki had little to no restrictions relating to the applying for anything, so we may have it fair better then them.

      There needs to be a mix of voting and discussion. We don't need to stretch it out to long and if you are applying for rights you should already be trusted, discussions should be to answer questions and smaller concerns. If people have larger concerns, they are not going to be swayed by talking.

      We also need to set up rules for applying. what are the requirements? If it fails, how long before they can try again? If we are doing this, we need to be ready for it to work and make sure we are not going to have any mistakes in promotions.

      I will try to stay out of this as much as possible. I have shared my concerns and I will leave it at that. The community needs to decide if the risk is worth it, and what we can do to prevent some of it. Either way, I have faith the community will handle this the way they feel is best.

        Loading editor
    • Commenting on the words above (Way too big to quote!) I kind of thought of an system for this. Give a staff recommendation in, then go and have a vote for that user to become a staff member. If a certain amount of people agree, then that's it, they are staff. As long as they are so new their pages almost sparkle, like me. Even if I want to be a staff, myself.


      And yes, that was me signing @Fghfghfgh510 as a wikia contributor.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      2014 was single handedly fucked because of the nomination rule. Lets fix that while we can.

      I completely agree. Nominations are a leftover of a regime only allowing users it believes are the ones most loyal to it to rise up in ranks.

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:

      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      2014 was single handedly fucked because of the nomination rule. Lets fix that while we can.

      I completely agree. Nominations are a leftover of a regime only allowing users it believes are the ones most loyal to it to rise up in ranks.

      And we all know how well that worked out. ;)

        Loading editor
    • One way to address problems would be to bring nominations into a larger group of users. I'd be very nice if a system like proposed could achieve that. We need to have as much community involvement as possible, eroding the discussion barriers. Maybe an application system would increase the amount of people following a such a discussion, or invite them to join in.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to make another point that appointing staff should become much more of a community decision. Leaving it only to the staff limits capabilities.

        Loading editor
    • The Rim of the Sky wrote: I'd like to make another point that appointing staff should become much more of a community decision. Leaving it only to the staff limits capabilities.

      Agreed fully on that point. At this point, with the current system, it only really takes one staff member to dislike you for some reason and oppose you becoming a staff for your chances to be zero'd on the spot. The community should have every right to be involved in discussing the staff they want leading their community.

        Loading editor
    • Where can I sign up?

        Loading editor
    • TheEssence wrote:
      Where can I sign up?

      The consensus is still in progress. Unfortunately, you do not currently meet the requirements of any staff rank. If you are interested in becoming a staff member, I encourage you to edit pages and contribute in discussions to meet expectations.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not a fan of changing the system, but if it did change I still think current staff & admins should have the final say and if they disagree we just need to deal with it, which I get the feeling from this kind of community that they won't. I say this because I've been in situations were the community riots hard for a certain member to become staff for all the wrong reasons and the staff know that it's for all the wrong reasons and deny it, and it results in a rift in the community; community vs staff.

      Elaboration on "all the wrong reasons": it has to be said, but some users are very 'talented' at getting people on their side i.e. manipulative. They can round up a crowd behind them to support a cause that is ultimately damaging to the community, and I absolutely hate crowd-mentally type situations. If you don't understand what I mean, please research the term "group polarisation" which comes from psychology.
      My other reasons why is because people really have no idea what it's like being an admin or staff member. We all think we have an idea but it's never going to be quite there, I can assure you. That's why I prefer admins promoting other admins; admins already in work know what it really takes to be an admin, something we don't know, so they're in the best position to pick a new staff member.
      On top of this, you're all crying that we have a lack of staff members, but the admins have said we're still running fine and that there's no need. I trust the admins, especially the ones we have now as they're doing an amazing job handling this place.

      Crowds of people who don't know any better but think they know everything are extremely dangerous, and situations where anyone (who fits the requirements) can apply and the community can then vote WILL result in a rift between community and staff. That's why I'm very opposed to this idea.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure about this whole thing. I like the idea of the community having a stronger voice in who gets to become staff, but I'm worried that if we do this it will completely turn into a popularity contest.

      What I'm afraid of is that someone ill-suited for a staff position with numerous friends will apply, and their friends will still back them; not because they deserve the position, but because they are friends. If we go ahead with this, I think the current staff should have the final say in an application to make sure this scenario doesn't occur.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: I'm not sure about this whole thing. I like the idea of the community having a stronger voice in who gets to become staff, but I'm worried that if we do this it will completely turn into a popularity contest.

      What I'm afraid of is that someone ill-suited for a staff position with numerous friends will apply, and their friends will still back them; not because they deserve the position, but because they are friends. If we go ahead with this, I think the current staff should have the final say in an application to make sure this scenario doesn't occur.

      There are two things we can do:

      1. Do away with voting. That will remove the WHOLE aspect of "popularity contest". Reasoned discussions with a straw poll at the end goes a long way to determine a consensus. Support/oppose isn't necessary for this and we all know the issues that support/oppose has caused with bogus votes being given and used against the candidate.
      2. The final decision should be left only to crats. As a crat is the only person who would be able to grant most of the rights (rollback, patroller, sysop), it should be their final decision (but it should be a collective between Tim and CCC, possibly Flightmare as he is a crat without the crat flag lol). In the case of chat mod and forum mod, it can be the final decision of a plain sysop such as Atvelonis.

      The only way that the stigma of "popularity contest" will go away is if voting is not the determinant factor (aka support/oppose templates). Simple.

        Loading editor
    • I like the second option. I trust Tim and CCC to do this fairly and efficiently, and without bias. So yeah, sounds fine to me.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote:
      I'm not sure about this whole thing. I like the idea of the community having a stronger voice in who gets to become staff, but I'm worried that if we do this it will completely turn into a popularity contest.

      What I'm afraid of is that someone ill-suited for a staff position with numerous friends will apply, and their friends will still back them; not because they deserve the position, but because they are friends. If we go ahead with this, I think the current staff should have the final say in an application to make sure this scenario doesn't occur.

      They would still needed to meet requirements. Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements of a position will have their application closed immediatly and a message would be left on their wall notifying them.

        Loading editor
    • If I had to choose between Sajuuks two options (Both of which I don't particularly agree with), I would go with the second. I do think that our Admin's are responsible enough to know who would be suited to the task they are going for. However, I don't think it should be without the community's say. I really don't see why voting is bad. Talk of popularity contests and lack of real discussion is pointless to me. I mentioned before that people are hardpressed to change their opinion of someone even if discussed at length. Voting or discussion, the consensus of a person would most likely be the same result. And it is often said to voters that they supply good reasoning for their vote, and while some may have been less than detailed about their reasoning, there is often SOME reasoning behind their decision. 

        Loading editor
    • Madman97 wrote:
      If I had to choose between Sajuuks two options (Both of which I don't particularly agree with), I would go with the second. I do think that our Admin's are responsible enough to know who would be suited to the task they are going for. However, I don't think it should be without the community's say. I really don't see why voting is bad. Talk of popularity contests and lack of real discussion is pointless to me. I mentioned before that people are hardpressed to change their opinion of someone even if discussed at length. Voting or discussion, the consensus of a person would most likely be the same result. And it is often said to voters that they supply good reasoning for their vote, and while some may have been less than detailed about their reasoning, there is often SOME reasoning behind their decision. 

      Admins have a veto power to deny applications, but it is rarely used when a user recieves a large amount of support votes. If it is used in said case, it often causes controversy and backlash. It has only happened on a few occasions for the old self-nominations.

        Loading editor
    • This could be considered to be completely off-topic, but it is relevant to the discussion about staff applications and should be considered when the system is changed over, because I believe that the change from nominations to applications should consider changing the system to discussions despite claims we should not do this.

      Madman97 wrote: I really don't see why voting is bad.

      Maybe you should read these:

      They are good reads and are widely accepted as the most common methods to run wiki's as they're community projects.

      Voting, at this point, is undermining real discussions and they're being used for no reason just because people can't be bothered to give a reason for why. This needs to change and we can do that by pushing discussions, not votes, to determine outcomes. If the wiki somehow cannot survive without a poll, then we do it with straw polls to quickly garner the consensus.

      These CT's about changing policies are the most friendliest I've seen on this wiki for a really long time: and you know why that is? Because we didn't decide the outcome from a frigging poll, but reasoned and polite discussions decided the outcome. That should be the main proponent about the wiki, not a poll.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      This could be considered to be completely off-topic, but it is relevant to the discussion about staff applications and should be considered when the system is changed over, because I believe that the change from nominations to applications should consider changing the system to discussions despite claims we should not do this.

      Madman97 wrote: I really don't see why voting is bad.

      Maybe you should read these:

      They are good reads and are widely accepted as the most common methods to run wiki's as they're community projects.

      Voting, at this point, is undermining real discussions and they're being used for no reason just because people can't be bothered to give a reason for why. This needs to change and we can do that by pushing discussions, not votes, to determine outcomes. If the wiki somehow cannot survive without a poll, then we do it with straw polls to quickly garner the consensus.

      These CT's about changing policies are the most friendliest I've seen on this wiki for a really long time: and you know why that is? Because we didn't decide the outcome from a frigging poll, but reasoned and polite discussions decided the outcome. That should be the main proponent about the wiki, not a poll.

      We're not Wikipedia. They have the biggest userbase of any wiki and have many professional and skilled users. There's no reason to remove the voting system from the voting system for nominations. Only two things will occur: the user either gets the flags or doesn't, and people get to vote on whether they think they should or should not get the flags and explain why. If they don't have an opinion, they can comment.

      If I recall, Narutopedia uses the voting system for staff nominations as well, unless that's been changed. Wikipedia utilizes the voting system in some aspects as well, such as Wikipedia Commons discussions for deleting files, because either way there will only be two results; the file is either kept or is deleted.

      CT suggestions should not utilize the voting option since a CT can end in an infinite amount of different ways, the voting system should only be kept in places where only two things will occur as an end result; case closed. 

        Loading editor
    • And I would like to call to everyone's attention that Sajuuk possesses the burden of proof. He constantly says voting leads to people getting voted into place because of poor reason and popularity contests. Sajuuk, can you please give us specific examples of when this has happened in the recent past, it being recent because it should be relevant?

        Loading editor
    • The Rim of the Sky wrote: If I recall, Narutopedia uses the voting system for staff nominations as well, unless that's been changed.

      No, they don't use voting for staff positions whatsoever. The lone bureaucrat there said that he will not use a poll of support/oppose to determine consensus because that is not how it works: people can make a poll thread for it, but he will not use the poll in any way to determine the outcome because a poll just makes it a popularity contest.

      I got majority support to become a sysop there and yet I wasn't made one, because the arguments against the promotion were enough for him to say "No", but I was given additional rights for the forums because that's where most of the support was. Case in point: voting doesn't determine consensus, discussion will do so and these CT threads should be perfect proof of this. That's a hard fact that people here need to accept: we're here to improve the wiki but promoting votes over discussion is not going to lead us in a suitable direction.

      Yes, Wikipedia/Wikimedia will use polls for some things but those are in the 1% minority: they will always recommend and push for discussion, just like in the article I linked in my post. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself, because I clearly seem to know what I'm talking about. Hell, we're not voting in these CT threads, but discussing it like civilised users and it's going far better than a poll would ever go on this wiki, isn't that enough evidence to showcase we don't need to keep relying on polls to determine the outcome/consensus?!

      @Madman: I only have to point you in the direction of the various archives for staff positions, and the CT's posted in the last year, that prove this right. The burden is on you to make the effort to look up the archives. Or are you trying to insinuate (yet again) that I am lying to this community despite being clearly more knowledgeable in this subject?

      Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. I've said my bit regarding the opening topic, feel free to do whatever you want. But I absolutely refuse to accept that polls are a necessity and if I was ever nominated (or applied) for a staff position, I would make it absolutely clear that a poll should not determine its outcome.

        Loading editor
    • Some of these suggestions seem fine, but also conflict and it can become confusing.

      1) No more Support/Oppose votes: I agree it should not be down to votes because it can easily become a popularity contest.

      2) Apply for rights: I agree if the user meets the requirements

      3) Discussion instead of votes: I agree here too, BUT then this means it falls down to the admins to decide in the end. That is kinda the system now - is it not?

      Also, lets say if several active users in this community wants a user to have certain rights, and the admins disagree - what happens? Seriously.

      • Are the admins allowed to refuse nominations?
      • If yes, then some are going to see this as too authorative.
      • If no, then there is not point in giving the final decision to admins and you may as well have votes.
      • Some of the community would be mad if said user did not get the rights - do they need to accept the decision?
      • How do you gauge if the supporters of said user are representative of the community, or at least a majority of it without votes?
        Loading editor
    • Wulfharth wrote: That is kinda the system now - is it not?

      It might look it, but it's actually just based on majority support from a vote. If you just write "Support: your signature here", it's still counted, despite having zero reason for why you are supporting. Kroq-gar78's nomination several years ago is an indication about how the system doesn't work as it should: he got 2 supports, one from the nominator and one from another crat, and was promoted without having any community involvement, which is crazy.

      We should assume good faith in any user contributing to promoting people to staff. Some users with only a couple edits may just be long time lurkers who haven't contributed or have watched the wiki as an anonymous user and registered to put in their two cents.

        Loading editor
    • I am surprised by how many people are in support of the Admins just controlling everything with these positions, did we not learn anything from before!? There needs to be a check and balance system between the Users and Admins, for it to be truly democratic. Or else Admins could just become corrupt. The Sysops could reject every nomination/Consensus that would either put someone they didn't want in power or remove one of their tools, we can't give them so much power.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Wulfharth wrote: That is kinda the system now - is it not?

      It might look it, but it's actually just based on majority support from a vote. If you just write "Support: your signature here", it's still counted, despite having zero reason for why you are supporting. Kroq-gar78's nomination several years ago is an indication about how the system doesn't work as it should: he got 2 supports, one from the nominator and one from another crat, and was promoted without having any community involvement, which is crazy.

      We should assume good faith in any user contributing to promoting people to staff. Some users with only a couple edits may just be long time lurkers who haven't contributed or have watched the wiki as an anonymous user and registered to put in their two cents.

      While I applaud you for finally giving us a specific example, I do not feel it is relevant given its time frame and I think things have significantly changes since then, so I think a better argument for you would be to give us more recent examples. I am not insuating you are lying to the community even though you "clearly know more about the subject," which in itself is a laughable claim  because your main argument is not even supported by anything except "Voting is totally a popularity contest" without recent examples to prove your point. And even if the Kroqgar78's nomination was relevant, one example doesn't exactly give us the preponderance of factual evidence needed to prove your claim. The burden is not on me to look for them. I don't have to do anything. That's not how the burden of proof works. You are trying to prove something, so you have to tell us why it is nothing but truth instead of using theoretical scenarios. You act as if every nomination decided by vote was a mess of incoherancy, yet only have one (bad) example to back it up. I remain unconvinced.

      And honestly, I think there was a pretty good reason you didn't become an Admin.

        Loading editor
    • Madman, I'm really quite done trying to tell you anything, because anything I say on this wiki always results in you saying something like "I dont' agree with you" so I'm not gonna bother any more. I'm not going to dig up every single freaking voting discussion just to satisfy your desire for "evidence".

      You should also stop speaking as though you are posting on behalf of the community, because you are not: it's just your own opinion and I'd like it if you could make it clear that it is just "your opinion" and that you are NOT speaking on behalf of the entire wiki community.

        Loading editor
    • Madman97 wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Wulfharth wrote: That is kinda the system now - is it not?

      It might look it, but it's actually just based on majority support from a vote. If you just write "Support: your signature here", it's still counted, despite having zero reason for why you are supporting. Kroq-gar78's nomination several years ago is an indication about how the system doesn't work as it should: he got 2 supports, one from the nominator and one from another crat, and was promoted without having any community involvement, which is crazy.

      We should assume good faith in any user contributing to promoting people to staff. Some users with only a couple edits may just be long time lurkers who haven't contributed or have watched the wiki as an anonymous user and registered to put in their two cents.

      While I applaud you for finally giving us a specific example, I do not feel it is relevant given its time frame and I think things have significantly changes since then, so I think a better argument for you would be to give us more recent examples. I am not insuating you are lying to the community even though you "clearly know more about the subject," which in itself is a laughable claim  because your main argument is not even supported by anything except "Voting is totally a popularity contest" without recent examples to prove your point. And even if the Kroqgar78's nomination was relevant, one example doesn't exactly give us the preponderance of factual evidence needed to prove your claim. The burden is not on me to look for them. I don't have to do anything. That's not how the burden of proof works. You are trying to prove something, so you have to tell us why it is nothing but truth instead of using theoretical scenarios. You act as if every nomination decided by vote was a mess of incoherancy, yet only have one (bad) example to back it up. I remain unconvinced.

      And honestly, I think there was a pretty good reason you didn't become an Admin.

      Spey has done a lot more for the wiki than your B- rate ass ever did. You're one of the reasons people have cited to me when they say they don't like the wiki anymore. Spey should have been an admin, and you should have been gone.

        Loading editor
    • Stay calm guys, we're having a civilized discussion; no reason for anyone to start insulting each other. I don't want this thread to get too out of hand.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: Stay calm guys, we're having a civilized discussion; No reason for anyone to start insulting each other. I don't want this thread to get too out of hand.

      I believe all that has been said that needed to be and that this should be closed and the needed changes made. Barring a couple of users, everyone is in support in abolishing staff nominations and support restoring the accepted method of users applying. This will only go around in circles since Madman97 does not agree with anyone else and demands everyone to post "evidence".

        Loading editor
    • Again, not sure why evidence is not necessary in this case. It was never my intention to offend any of you, and there was no indication I was speaking for the entire community, just my own opinion on why I thought abolishing voting is wrong. It's nothing to get upset over. And arguing for my own point does not mean I am unreasonable, I just find flaws in your argument that I try to point out but you refuse to answer it under the guise that I am a terrible user who doesn't contribute anything. Listen, I am sure we can find a compromise somewhere, but you gotta understand where I am coming from here. I get it from your point of view. It makes sense and it seems to work, but I am trying to use proper reasoning to tell you that voting is not as bad as you think. If you really wanted to convince me, you need to give a convincing argument that has the preponderance of factual evidence needed to support it instead of blind claims. I agree in some cases it has happened, and I won't deny that, but most of the time it seems to have gone alright. If you disagree, why isn't evidence necessary to actually prove it?

      And one more thing. I don't disagree with everyone. Just you, and for some reason, you get really fired up about it. Chill. I think one of your main problems Sajuuk is that you blow everything out of proportion. Even minor problems are some huge epic crisis to you, and it shows in the other consensus threads. The opinion of one user apparently will force everyone to come at a stop and no progression will be accomplished. So if you don't agree with me, fine, but don't act as if I am destroying the wiki just because I don't agree with you. 

        Loading editor
    • Madman97 wrote: Again, not sure why evidence is not necessary in this case. It was never my intention to offend any of you, and there was no indication I was speaking for the entire community, just my own opinion on why I thought abolishing voting is wrong. It's nothing to get upset over. And arguing for my own point does not mean I am unreasonable, I just find flaws in your argument that I try to point out but you refuse to answer it under the guise that I am a terrible user who doesn't contribute anything. Listen, I am sure we can find a compromise somewhere, but you gotta understand where I am coming from here. I get it from your point of view. It makes sense and it seems to work, but I am trying to use proper reasoning to tell you that voting is not as bad as you think. If you really wanted to convince me, you need to give a convincing argument that has the preponderance of factual evidence needed to support it instead of blind claims. I agree in some cases it has happened, and I won't deny that, but most of the time it seems to have gone alright. If you disagree, why isn't evidence necessary to actually prove it?

      My example is every pre-now administrator. They all were targetive pricks. Or the fact that I, myself was even able to pull the system and become a chat mod after only a few days of acting nice. Though I did do my job, it's very, very easy to get what you want in our system, as long as you have the connection.

      In my standpoint, it should be a vote, but the nomination system should be abolished completely. Appliance is the best route. Who cares if it is a popularity contest? Because, honestly, major opinion is almost always the right way. The ones who are the best to do the work are often the most popular users. They're popular for a reason.

        Loading editor
    • No no, I completely agree with the application idea. I just think abolishing voting completely may be a bit extreme. And thank you for providing examples Shawn, seriously. I agree that past Admins kind of sucked. They were disconnected from the commmunity and didn't really care about anything outside the mainstream. Actually, I am largely where your at Shawn on this.

        Loading editor
    • Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

        Loading editor
    • The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

      Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

      Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Atvelonis wrote: I'm not sure about this whole thing. I like the idea of the community having a stronger voice in who gets to become staff, but I'm worried that if we do this it will completely turn into a popularity contest.

      What I'm afraid of is that someone ill-suited for a staff position with numerous friends will apply, and their friends will still back them; not because they deserve the position, but because they are friends. If we go ahead with this, I think the current staff should have the final say in an application to make sure this scenario doesn't occur.

      There are two things we can do:

      1. Do away with voting. That will remove the WHOLE aspect of "popularity contest". Reasoned discussions with a straw poll at the end goes a long way to determine a consensus. Support/oppose isn't necessary for this and we all know the issues that support/oppose has caused with bogus votes being given and used against the candidate.
      2. The final decision should be left only to crats. As a crat is the only person who would be able to grant most of the rights (rollback, patroller, sysop), it should be their final decision (but it should be a collective between Tim and CCC, possibly Flightmare as he is a crat without the crat flag lol). In the case of chat mod and forum mod, it can be the final decision of a plain sysop such as Atvelonis.

      The only way that the stigma of "popularity contest" will go away is if voting is not the determinant factor (aka support/oppose templates). Simple.

      While I'm still against this whole thing, out of the options provided I stand with everyone else on the second option with crats having the final say. Even if voting is done away with, the discussions will still highlight the popularity contest scenario Atvelonis has brought up. And like someone else has mentioned which I've warned before, with crats having the last say may still cause problems- if a person has a large following of support but the crats still reject it, people will start a s***storm over it as is the nature of this community. Sorry to be the old person who stands on the sidelines waving their cane at young people and yelling about a bad feeling in my bones, but yeah that's my opinion on this.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

      Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

      Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application.

      Yeah, Shawn's 100% right here the Admins having all this power will only lead to bad news, there needs to be a divided basis with the community & Admins, not just one being a figurehead, and the other having actual influence. Having the Admins a right to completely veto anything is bordering dictator control from them, and almost nulls democracy, since in the long run what people vote wouldn't even matter, since the Sysop could just "veto"

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:

      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

      Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

      Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application.

      Yeah, Shawn's 100% right here the Admins having all this power will only lead to bad news, there needs to be a divided basis with the community & Admins, not just one being a figurehead, and the other having actual influence. Having the Admins a right to completely veto anything is bordering dictator control from them, and almost nulls democracy, since in the long run what people vote wouldn't even matter, since the Sysop could just "veto"

      The problem with democracy is that just because something is a majority, doesn't make it right. Often the choices that crowds make are very wrong ones. Also, it's not just one admin who's sitting there with this massive amount of power you guys keep talking about- there are several admins and even more staff. It's more of a council who will give their final opinion, not one dictator telling everyone else what to do.

        Loading editor
    • Bluesonic1 wrote:

      Zippertrain85 wrote:

      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

      Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

      Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application.

      Yeah, Shawn's 100% right here the Admins having all this power will only lead to bad news, there needs to be a divided basis with the community & Admins, not just one being a figurehead, and the other having actual influence. Having the Admins a right to completely veto anything is bordering dictator control from them, and almost nulls democracy, since in the long run what people vote wouldn't even matter, since the Sysop could just "veto"

      The problem with democracy is that just because something is a majority, doesn't make it right. Often the choices that crowds make are very wrong ones. Also, it's not just one admin who's sitting there with this massive amount of power you guys keep talking about- there are several admins and even more staff. It's more of a council who will give their final opinion, not one dictator telling everyone else what to do.

      Just because it may be more then one user making these decisions isn't automatically a shield against dictatorship. It would be an Oligarchy of staff, which would still mean that a ton of users would have no say in how things are ran, we make up this Wiki, yet you think we should no say in how it's ran, that sounds like a dictatorship to me!

      It also pretty much is one group of users having power over another on the Wiki, since the Staff make the decisions and choose who gets to become one of them. With the community just being brushed to the side, though democracy does have it's issues do you think some staff with total control is going to lead to anything better

        Loading editor
    • Ok, this is getting more heated then it should be. No matter your views on the old Admins, calling them names is not necessary nor healthy towards the repair of this wiki. No matter what they did, or how we feel about their leaving, anger and the continuing to spread it, will not make this place better no matter the policy. The community was built differently back then, this does not mean it was wrong, nor does it mean the admins being promoted was wrong. If an admin only got two votes on his nomination, that doesn't mean the system was wrong, that means the community didn't get involved, if the admin was bad then its not his fault that he got in.

      I am not sure how voting will be fully removed from nominations. Its still a yes or no, even without the voting templates. The only way this could be done is if more trust was put into the admins and staff, as I will try to explain below. Even without the "voting" people will still be saying yes or no, so unless we set it up in such a way that having more people say yes doesn't matter, it could still be considered a "popularity contest".

      Now, while I prefer trying to let the talks die down before ending them, we are at a point where we are just arguing. So here is what I see us needing and wanting done.

      • Staff nominations will no longer be used. The editor must instead apply for the role themselves.
      • Before applying, they need to meet the requirements of that position. applications that do not meet all requirements will be closed and rejected.
      • As with staff before, editor given rights through applications are subject to the same rules and requirements, and are still subject to the repercussions of trying to bypass them.
      • Editors can show either approval or opposition to the nomination by commenting the application. They are asked to give full reasoning why, and refrain from just saying "yes" or "what he said". For staff applications to work, we need community involvement.
      • To be approved, that nominee in question must show they are not only ready for the responsibility, but that they are trusted by the community. If unable to, the application will be rejected.
      • Administrators will watch over the application. It is their job to go over the comments and (for lack of a better word at this time) votes from the community. They will decide if this person has proven they can be trusted, and are trusted by the community.
        Loading editor
    • Are we in agreement or do we still want to talk this out?

        Loading editor
    • I agree on this. The current system obviously does not work, and this will make a great change to the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah CCC, looks good to me. This will work out well.

        Loading editor
    • Absolutly ! I agree with CCC'boy

        Loading editor
    • I agree with CCC here. Wikipedia has stated it does not run like a democracy and neither to we, but we are not a dictatorship, we're a wiki; simple as that. During elections, all voters have to do is select which party they want on a ballot. Here we vote, but we value input and explanation. Everyone will have an opinion on an application, and if not they just vote neutral or leave a comment. 

      By being trusted, I suppose you mean experienced and known in the community.

      Requirements must always be met. If someone is applying for patroller but has around 300 mainspace edits rather than at least 500, they will be denied. If someone does not act like a role model for the community and applies (i.e. has a bad attitude, short-fused, vulgar, abusive) then an admin can veto their application.  

      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

      The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

      If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible.

      Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

      Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application.

      Just because the old administrators are now retired does not mean they can be insulted. Some of them can be considered that way, but if not every one of them. They may be gone but our rule that insults will not be tolerated still applies.

      Our current admins are certainly not abusive, and they will not use a bias to reject applications. Veto rejections will only occur when the user shows that they do not meet requirements. Admins who were abusive in the past are considered to not meet or current standards.

        Loading editor
    • It works for me CCC. I'd say we can close this one up.

        Loading editor
    • Ok then, for better or worse, the wiki has decided.  I thank you all for your feedback.

      This Consensus is now closed and approves the move from nominations to applications. 

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message