Difference between revisions of "Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap"

From Team Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Dissolving Edit Minimum)
m (Against <=5 people votes)
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Distribution Model ==
+
{{Archive list
 +
| contents = '''Archive'''<br />[[Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap/Archive 1|July 3 - August 8, 2011]]}}
  
In response to the 'Nominate and Approve' model discussed on the project page:
+
== Round-the-Clock Moderation ==
* With the previous Wiki Cap distribution method, the key flaw that the staff seem to agree upon was the fact it was automated, dependant upon whatever data the wiki had easy access to. However, the idea of collecting candidates into one ongoing list is not inherently flawed on its own; how about setting up a '''private''' PasteBin (or other remotely-hosted) list of candidates, possibly with a regularly-changed password, that any of the Wiki higher-ups could add candidates to? After you establish an initial list template and first set of nominees, any new candidate submissions would be added to the bottom of the list, keeping the old nominees near the top and in regular consideration. As long as a good template is agreed upon, this would hopefully solve some of the issues inherent in the previously-used method, while retaining a familiar and dependable data format. [[User:Mainman|<span style="text-shadow:#0099FF 0px 0px 3px;color:steelblue;font-size:95%;font-weight:bold" title="Mainman"><u>Mainman</u></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Mainman|Talk]] ▪ [[Special:Contributions/Mainman|Contribs.]])</sup> 15:51, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
 
* I figure I'd throw in my two cents since (heh) someone asked for opinions in the IRC. As far as the previous system is concerned, I'm glad it was removed. It encouraged a 'stats' type system where people weren't making quality edits anymore, and were more concerned about being on a list. For the new method, I would support the nomination and voting method. Anyone can nominate anyone else, and votes are publicly seen under each persons name. The votes being publicly available are important, as they can help a user know what he is doing wrong, and what to improve. And of course there is bound to be a good handful of votes of people for themselves, and other things like that, and the solution to this, I think, is easy. Simply post a noticeable banner/section at the top of the page, outlining basic rules like "Voting for yourself is allowed, but not desirable" And other such guidelines, as well as tips for users to spot other good users out there. As far as the lazy-ness goes, I don't think it's a problem. Plenty of people still these days go wack-o over wikicaps. And the last important thing to do would be to make users very aware of the new process once/if it's enacted, and have a noticeable, permanent, link on the mainpage, or sidebar linking to the wikicap articles. I just don't think that a small link somewhere stuffed into the mainpage will draw that many users in. Well that's my opinion, I'd hope that you guys take it into consideration, that is, if anyone even sees this :/. <span style="font-family:TF2 Build;font-size:17px;color:#70B031">[[User:MogDog66|MogDog66]][[File:User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png|24px|link=User_talk:MogDog66]]</span> 15:20, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
 
* I think IRC logs must be visible, "but only mods / admins should be allowed to join when there is discussion going on" (In the words of seb26) -- [[User:Cappy|<span style="color:#55bb00;font-size:13px;font-family:'Verdana';font-weight: bold;">Cappy</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:Login_Soldier.png]] <sup>[[User talk:Cappy|<span style="background:#FFD700;padding:0 2px;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 22:24, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
 
  
== Visibility ==
+
Whilst more of a combination of two of the existing ones, has there been a consideration of removing moderators who are inactive (through a discussions of course), then re-hiring around 5-6 moderators who are in different time zones? For instance, 5 mods from UK/West EU, 5 from USA, and 5 from Eest EU/Asia/Oceania. This kind of a set-up should give a strong moderator presence around the clock.
  
On the subject of visibility (i.e. transparency), I would like to re-emphasise that the Wiki is a community project. That was the rationale behind its creation, the way in which it has been, and still is, advertised to the playerbase, and the way in which it is regarded by the community at large. Transparency is of critical importance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to ensure that the community can have confidence in the Wiki's leadership. This is important to consider, as certain allegations have been made in past that accuse the Staff of impropriety (such as the alleged awarding of Wiki Caps to friends, etc) and will no doubt be made again in the future. Regardless of the accuracy of such allegations, the best defence against such rhetoric in the past has been "check the logs". If the process of awarding Wiki Caps becomes opaque to the community and the process happens behind closed doors, what will the Staff's official answer be to any such allegations? How can the process be defended if it is not transparent? How can the community have confidence in a system that they cannot participate in, and have no visibility into? The former is not necessarily a problem because members of the community would not necessarily be aware of the contributions of individuals, but the latter? A lack visibility into the process would only add credence to those detractors that claim that the Wiki is run by a "secretive cabal", and that is the sort of view that, if adopted by more than a vocal minority, could have a deleterious impact upon the reputation of the Wiki and its Staff. Considering the excitable nature of communities such as the Steam Fora, such a dramatic policy change will certainly be inflammatory when introduced, and questions *will* be asked and (probably erroneous) assumptions made.  
+
Most other solutions seem like they might not work in a democratic and fair system: non-staff members could easily bias votes if they think un/friendly things about the candidate, static discussions would mean people would put their views and generally not bother to look at it again, and less staff members mean less discussion.
  
It is a change like this that has the potential to have a significant, negative impact upon the public's perception of the Wiki, which would be a serious setback for a community site. Altering the process and making it private sends a strong message to the community at large and, even if the policy change were explained and outlined in depth, it is probable that it would still be misinterpreted. Rather than being seen as a practical change for convenience and in order to improve the Cap distribution system, the change could be seen (most likely by a vocal minority) to have been implemented for nefarious reasons. The problem is that such minorities can be quite loud, and even if they are merely "trolling", there will always be people that take them seriously, and such tales inevitably spread to the community and even to those that do not utilise the Steam Fora. As a public Wiki, the opinion of the community is of vital importance and this should be taken into consideration. The Wiki is not a private enterprise after all, and is a community resource (albeit one officially recognised by Valve). As such, I would contend that the Wiki actually has an obligation to be transparent, even if the community is not directly involved in the Wiki Cap distribution process. Indeed, the very fact that they do not means that full transparency is the one of the best ways to ensure that the system is equitable and above reproach. Just a little food for thought. --- [[File:Killicon_pumpkin.png|40px|link=User:Esquilax]] <font face="georgia" size="2">[[User:Esquilax|Esquilax]]</font> 16:35, 18 July 2011 (PDT)
+
Just some of my views ^^ [[File:User Wingless Winged Signature.png|150px|link=User:Wingless]] 15:14, 29 August 2012 (PDT)
:Have to say I agree with all the points Esky mentioned here. The wiki is transparent by nature, and closing doors will only cause problems. It's obvious you guys wish to avoid the "friends of the admins" appearance, yet if you close doors, how will anyone know anyway? For all they know you can still be inviting non admins. The wiki is a transparent place where all users can exchange and view the flow of information, regardless of said information's topic, or whom is discussing it. And as for excuse that making the process visible would hurt the wiki's image anyway, as some people get heated in the discussion, I don't think that's anyone's fault other than whoever got heated. I don't understand why an entire staff should have to compromise to hide the '''entire'' discussion, just because a couple of people can't be calm. As far as I'm concerned, those who cannot control themselves and be civil should be talked to, and asked to calm down. After all, if we have angry staff, that's bad for the image anyway, open discussion or not. Excuse me for being a bit blunt, all the wiki staff are nice people, and everyone has their faults, I just find it necessary to express all my opinions in a discussion I find to be very important. <span style="font-family:TF2 Build;font-size:17px;color:#70B031">[[User:MogDog66|MogDog66]][[File:User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png|24px|link=User_talk:MogDog66]]</span> 13:48, 22 July 2011 (PDT)
 
  
: Closing the doors of the wiki cap discussions, and discussions in general puts out a very strong message that the views of the community are not regarded or considered.  Even the opinions of those of us who have been around for a while and are known to all of the moderators and admins seem to have been cast aside, as even on the discussion on the wiki cap talk page was restricted to "staff only."  Those of us who also had opinions were told, "go over here and slap down an opinion on this other page if you really have to say something."  We are talking about an item which is rewarded to those of us who go out of our way to better the wiki and help the community.  To close out the community in anything goes against the whole point.  Is it valid to say that anyone's opinion is more valuable than anyone else's? -- [[User:General coolio|<span style="color:#476291;font-size:13px;font-family:
+
== New nomination system idea ==
'TF2 Build';text-shadow:#050505 1px 1px 0px;">GenCoolio</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:User_GenCoolioSig.png|Never Trade Ever]] ([[User talk:General coolio|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/General coolio|contribs]])</span> 20:29, 22 July 2011 (PDT)
 
  
::I don't see why the selection process needs our intervention. We are not the ones whom will judge who gets what and when. Too many cooks spoil the broth. I personally do not like the idea that these discussions are "OPEN" for everyone to view. I would not want others to read the discussions that the Staff members may have about me with regards to being considered for a Wiki Cap or my behaviour if it has been unruly, etc. That is something that should be done behind closed doors where the Staff can say what they need to and/or look into my work and judge it. I don't want to know nor should I care to read the discussions that do not concern me, and most of the time, said conversations bring about pure drama, competition, and even jealousy.
+
Maybe it looks cold on the first look but i think this shortens it, but also makes it more clear what a person does on the wiki
::Imagine if your school grades were discussed in front of the entire class, if personal information you wanted to remain private was revealed to everyone. That's what we're basically looking at here: dissemination of information that should remain private as it pertains to individuals, rather than the Wiki as a whole.
+
Pick 3-5 main points and after that what the person which is nominated also does. Here my suggestions:
::If I have any concerns on how the Staff members are handling a situation, I know I can go to them and discuss these issues further. I have never been turned away, and I know they would be as helpful as possible. They have nothing to hide and have a proven track record of responsiveness and openness. If they wanted to do it behind closed doors, I fully trust them to do so. If I didn't, I would not be here right now. And if I feel something regarding my work on the Wiki needs to be privately discussed, including my own Wiki Cap selection process, then I think a one-on-one option with an admin should be viable for all members of the Wiki, rather than a public discussion.
 
::In response to concerns about outside opinions on the Wiki Cap selection process:
 
::We should not allow ourselves to be concerned with unfounded, biased perceptions into our selection process, as this can be detrimental to any sort of meaningful and productive discourse relating to important decisions on the Wiki. Rather, we should allow those elements to bicker amongst themselves (which they will anyway, with or without our influence) and put our focus on deriving progress in discussions about said issues.
 
::Remember, according to Valve - Robin Walker to be exact "No bias towards the Steam forums either, they're only around 3% of the player base. They try to focus on problems, not solutions, until they're sure they've identified the problems correctly. THEN they're interested in what solutions the community proposes." [http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1803644| Robin Walker interview by Political Gamer], the majority of the TF2 fanbase is not centralized on a specific, official forum. Likewise, we should not put so much weight on what a message board thinks about our operations.  [[user:BiBi|<small style="background:#f6f6f6;border:1px solid #006666;padding:0em  0.5em;color:#000;-webkit-box-shadow:2px 1px 1px #006666;">'''BiBi'''</small>]] 17:07, 23 July 2011 (PDT)
 
  
Okay, how about this:
+
{{pro}} Makes redirects<br>
* A new channel, #tfwikicap or something, is made, with '''private''' logs and passworded entry. '''Only wiki cap matters should be discussed in it''', so that other discussions (establishing policies etc) can still be handled publicly in #tfwikistaff
+
{{pro}} Creates new articles in "language"<br>
* Spacenet goes in there, like the omniscient bot that it is
+
{{pro}} Makes grammar corrections<br>
* When it's time to review someone, Spacenet would have a command like "!startlog SomeUsername" that people in there would trigger
+
{{pro}} Deletes bad edits and/or trivia and/or bugs<br>
* People would then talk about SomeUsername's work, review, decide etc
+
{{pro}} Uploads new pictures<br>
* When done, someone would say "!endlog", and that would end SomeUsername's log
+
{{pro}} Creates new pictures (paintable hats f.e.)<br>
* This log would then be viewable online but with a password unique to SomeUsername
+
{{pro}} Helps new user to improve with informations about a wiki problem<br>
* SomeUsername may then ask an admin to give him URL/password so that he can view the log if he wants to
+
{{pro}} Creates needed templates<br>
* SomeUsername may share said URL/password if he decides to make it public; but again, this would only make public his log, not the others' logs
+
{{pro}} Updates articles which are outdated in "language"<br>
This requires that extra functionality added to Spacenet, so it may take some time to get it working right, but I feel this would give the proper transparency/privacy balance. Please let me know what you think~ — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] 19:04, 23 July 2011 (PDT)
+
{{pro}} Works on the STS for TF2 translations (discussable)<br>
:I like this idea. If it were to be implemented though I think all users must be made aware of their right to this information. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:83%;">—[[File:User Moussekateer signature sprite.png|31px|link=User:Moussekateer]][[User:Moussekateer|<span style="color:black">Moussekateer</span>]]·[[User talk:Moussekateer|<span style="color:black;font-size:82%;">talk</span>]]</span>''' 15:19, 24 July 2011 (PDT)
 
::Why yes, that would be part of the guidelines rewrite we have to do — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (PDT)
 
:Yes, this might work. However, as Mousse said, all users need to be ''very'' aware of the channel, and its process, and they need to somehow be reassured that wikicap is discussion is '''all''' that would be going on in there, as I trust the staff wouldn't go around the community's back like that. Showing the user the logs allow the user to see why or why not they received the cap, and allows said user to share the log to other users so they have an outline of appropriate behavior/actions, while still retaining most of the transparency in all wiki-related matters. I support this, as long as it's incorporated correctly. <span style="font-family:TF2 Build;font-size:17px;color:#70B031">[[User:MogDog66|MogDog66]][[File:User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png|24px|link=User_talk:MogDog66]]</span> 20:52, 24 July 2011 (PDT)
 
::Hmm, an interesting idea. It may be a good compromise, however it is not difficult to imagine the community in general complaining about *any* private channel, as they may suspect that it could be used for "secret discussions" that do not relate to the Cap. The irony being of course, that there is nothing to stop the Staff doing that now through other methods such as Steam or IM ;). One alternative that springs to mind would be scheduling the logs to become public after a certain period of time. This would not prevent the Staff members' passion (if any) from being displayed (which as I understand it is a concern), but that could be overcome by obfuscating specific lines. Naturally, that too has its problems (not to mention additional work for someone). I suppose that in the end, the question of why some Staff become so impassioned that they feel the need to keep their comments private (not that there is anything wrong with that) is at the heart of the matter. Is it simply a matter of personalities? Interpretations of the rules? Perceived nepotism? I wonder if this is something that could be addressed, i.e. work with the people in order to avoid any vitriol as opposed to implementing a technical solution that may not be necessary. I do not know enough about the current wrinkles in the process to comment, but it's just a thought. --- [[File:Killicon_pumpkin.png|40px|link=User:Esquilax]] <font face="georgia" size="2">[[User:Esquilax|Esquilax]]</font> 21:12, 24 July 2011 (PDT)
 
:::As you said, there could already be such private channels among staff, and we obviously cannot prove that these are not being used to discuss wikicap-related issues. It's a matter of trust, one way or another; just like you trust the existing logs to be accurate in the first place. I could modify them at will if I wanted to (and I do, when things like street addresses and such are erroneously pasted inside publicly-logged channels), but the community (already) trusts that this doesn't happen. — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] 20:45, 25 July 2011 (PDT)
 
: I think this is very good idea! — [[User:Cappy|<span style="color:#55bb00;font-size:13px;font-family:'Verdana';font-weight: bold;">Cappy</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:Login_Soldier.png]] <sup>[[User talk:Cappy|<span style="background:#FFD700;padding:0 2px;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 10:54, 25 July 2011 (PDT)
 
::Just might be awkward for someone if they ask for their log and the answer is "...we don't have a log for you" But that's kind of an unavoidable problem. [[User:Balladofwindfishes|Balladofwindfishes]] 11:03, 25 July 2011 (PDT)
 
:The idea that private discussions don't already take place is quite silly. No one can prove they have happened or that they haven't. Let us not forget that. The key here is not that staff comments should stay private, for logs should be provided if requested by the individual in question, the point is that the "individual" whom the staff members are reviewing should have the "choice" of whether they are happy for everyone to read the comments staff members make about them. Whether good or bad, it should be a choice made by the individual that is getting reviewed. So my concern is not so much about what Staff members not been able to speak openly, because to be frank, if you are an administrator or moderator you better feel pretty comfortable about speaking out and knowing that things you say may go under scrutiny. Sometimes admins/moderators maybe right and sometimes wrong but one thing they should always be is comfortable with being open and honest with those they are trying to help. This I feel is the case with our current Staff members so lucky us that we have such a great team. [[user:BiBi|<small style="background:#f6f6f6;border:1px solid #006666;padding:0em  0.5em;color:#000;-webkit-box-shadow:2px 1px 1px #006666;">'''BiBi'''</small>]] 11:27, 25 July 2011 (PDT)
 
  
== Dissolving Edit Minimum ==
+
[[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] 08:01, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
: That summarizes most of what can be done on the wiki, I'm against relating the wiki cap to the STS though, it's two completely different things. Working on STS shouldn't in any way be related to obtaining a Wiki Cap. The Wiki Cap is a reward for contributing and improving the TF Wiki, not the STS. [[User:Tturbo|<span style="font-family:TF2 Build; color:#476291 ">Tturbo</span>]] [[File:Killicon_ambassadorhs_unused.png|50px|link=User:Tturbo]] <sub><sub>([[File:Speech voice.png|20px|link=User talk:Tturbo]] / [[File:Intel neutral pickedup.png|20px|link=Special:Contributions/Tturbo]])</sub></sub> 08:16, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
::I was under the idea that most/all of this was already considered. That and being somewhat active in general. But I agree, the STS stuff doesn't really seem relevant to the wiki. [[User:Sven|~Sven~]] 08:18, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
:::So add some more points, which are missing? If people add a person for nomination they often dont insert certain informations, and only some "could be argument". So i think with these we could shorten the nominations but also show what makes this user good(special). [[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] 08:23, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
::::To be very honest, nomination systems should work by giving examples and not simply saying "oh he does this, and he does that~". There should be very clear and very strong examples as to what the user has contributed to the Wiki, be they overhauls, new pages and a lot of content, or pictures they've uploaded (etc). Small things like redirects and tags (i.e. improveimage, delete, move, etc) should ''not'' count towards the main nomination, but definitely can be considered in the final decision-making process as a way of seeing what users do - if it's constant redirects and silly small edits to boost edit count then no, it shouldn't be considered. But if it's all a part of several things then it can be considered if the people behind the final decision wish it to be. Also, STS workers should be a catalyst behind decisions and not a reason for a nomination. [[File:User Wingless Winged Signature.png|150px|link=User:Wingless]] 08:33, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
  
I would first of all like to emphasize that hat is for the ''community'', and should, in my opinion, be handed out based on a user's impact on the ''community''. A user who does not participate in discussions, who does not go on IRC, but has over 1,000 edits based off of work a bot could do, should not be getting a Wiki Cap. While on the other hand, a user who has only around 100 edits, but that are centered on talk pages, discussions, and is on IRC, should get one. The 400 edit count rule drives people to make edits a bot could do and put lousy edits as fast as possible. If the guidelines were more community oriented, or even completely about the community impact, you would stop people from 'edit whoring' and putting useless information. Lastly, it's called the ''Community'' Wiki Cap, why isn't it based on the person impact in the ''community''. Thank you for reading this proposal. --<span style="font-family:ERAS Medium ITC; color:silver; text-decoration:blink">_</span>[[User:Sp3ctr3|<span style="color:silver">'''Sp3c'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sp3ctr3|<span style="color:silver">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 00:08, 4 August 2011 (PDT)
+
== Three-Phase System Proposal ==
: There is no minimum edit rule with the solution we've been discussing on this page; that's part of the old distribution process we're replacing. -[[User:RJackson|<span class="modbg" style="margin-right:1px;text-shadow: #538237 1px 1px 0px;">RJ</span>]] 00:11, 4 August 2011 (PDT)
+
 
 +
It's quite sad to see the current system isn't working anymore, especially after I helped to revamp its presentation about a year ago. Helping to fix the mechanics of the process seems like next logical step.
 +
 
 +
This proposal includes ideas already presented on the [[Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Wiki Cap|staff]] and [[Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap|user]] Talk pages; credit is given where credit is due.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== In a Nutshell... ===
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* <u>'''Wave 1:'''</u> Someone awards a 'Nomination' wikichievement to another user. People leave feedback on the user's Talk page. The nominee passes Wave 1 if enough people agree with the nomination.
 +
 
 +
* <u>'''Wave 2:'''</u> A team of moderators and 'trusted' users pick a nominee, gather evidence, do a background check and make a simple review. Other trusted "reviewers" check the facts and leave their own review. Wave 2 is passed if the majority of the reviews agree with the nomination.
 +
 
 +
* <u>'''Wave 3:'''</u> Staff members look over the evidence and post their own reviews to a private forum. Wave 3 is passed and a Wiki Cap is awarded if most of the participating staff members say "Yes".
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Phase 1: Nominations (All Wiki Users) ===
 +
 
 +
Firstly, the [[Team Fortress Wiki:Wiki Cap/Nominations|existing Nominations page]] would become protected from normal user edits, and mostly update on its own via templates as described below.
 +
 
 +
The new Nomination process would start on users' Talk pages. After deciding to nominate someone for a Wiki Cap, a user would create a dedicated section on the nominee's Talk page to award them a new 'Nomination' Wikichievement.
 +
* The "Reasons for Nomination" in the old process would find their home here. Users who 'agree' or 'disagree' with the nomination will cite whatever reasons they think are relevant. Linking to evidence will not be necessary at this point in the process.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<u>'''MOCKUP:'''</u>
 +
 
 +
{| style="width: 100%; text-align: center;" class="wikitable"
 +
! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:230px;" {{!}} Wikichievement !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Nominated By !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Reasons
 +
|-
 +
| {{Achievement notification
 +
  | img  = Tf scared stiff.png
 +
  | title = Cap Nominee
 +
  | text  = Somebody out there thinks you've got what it takes to wear a Wiki Cap! Do the other wiki users agree? Let's find out...
 +
  }}
 +
| User:Person_Z
 +
| I like zis weapo... '''person'''. Iz good.
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
{| style="width: 100%; text-align: center;" class="wikitable"
 +
!  style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Username !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Agree/Disagree !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Reasons
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_B
 +
| {{c|+|Yes!}}
 +
| We have nothing to fear from trusting this man. Our wiki, and our country, are in good hands.
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_C
 +
| {{c|-|Nah}}
 +
| Ah always edit drunk, and I c'n still spell beh'er than 'im!
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_D
 +
| {{c|+|Yeh}}
 +
| Left his dispenser on the barracks for me last week. He's a mate, fer deffo.
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The existing Nominations page would have a simple table called <u>'''Phase 1: Nominations'''</u>, automatically listing any users with the Wikichievement on their talk page, along with an Agree/Disagree 'points' counter. The counter would be a template that updates its 'Points' scores based on the following:
 +
* Points are invalid if they don't begin with {{c|+}} / {{c|-}} and end with a user signature.
 +
* Only one point can be given per user.
 +
** {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} Excluding the proposed 'Nomination' Wikichievement, should there be an additional restriction where users must have at least one Wikichievement to their name for their "Point" to count?
 +
 
 +
After reaching a minimum number of 'points', while also maintaining a good Agree/Disagree points ratio, the user would automatically move to a table called <u>'''Phase 1: Candidates'''</u>.
 +
* {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} What would be a suitable minimum number of points?
 +
* {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} What would be a suitable ratio of Agree/Disagree points?
 +
 
 +
If the user has a bad Agree/Disagree ratio, then they will automatically be moved to a different table called <u>'''Phase 1: Non-Candidates'''</u> until their ratio improves.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<u>'''MOCKUPS:'''</u><br />
 +
''Phase 1: Candidates''
 +
{| class="wikitable grid sortable collapsible" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%"
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Nominee
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Total Points
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Agree/Disagree Count
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Ratio
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_A
 +
| 4
 +
| {{c|+|3}} / {{c|-|1}}
 +
| 75%
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
''Phase 1: Non-Candidates''
 +
{| class="wikitable grid sortable collapsible" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%"
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Nominee
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Total Points
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Agree/Disagree Count
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Ratio
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_E
 +
| 8
 +
| {{c|+|1}} / {{c|-|7}}
 +
| 12.5%
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Phase 2: Filtering (Trusted Users) ===
 +
 
 +
'''A staff-selected team of users''', along with any moderators and staff members who want to help, would hold responsibility for the next step: <u>Manually filtering through the Phase 1 Candidates for those who deserve to reach Phase 3</u>.
 +
* {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} How many users should the staff grant the 'trusted' responsibility to?
 +
 
 +
Firstly, a Trusted User marks a Phase 1 Candidate as 'selected', which removes the nominee's info from that table and adds them to an invisible one called <u>'''Selected Users'''</u> ''(all users that have Wiki Caps will be in this list too, to prevent re-nomination)''. The information is manually transferred across to a table called <u>'''Phase 2: Filtered Nominations'''</u>. The table would require the following information:
 +
* A check-list of Yes/No answers to various questions about the user's contributions <u>(as originally suggested by [[User:TheDoctor|TheDoctor]])</u>:
 +
** <u>'''Q1'''</u> ''Has the user significantly improved an existing article, or made extensive valuable changes to a page that was already good?''
 +
** <u>'''Q2'''</u> ''Has the user contributed good 'new' pages? (Excluding patch-day additions)''
 +
** <u>'''Q3'''</u> ''Has the user contributed good 'new' pages on a TF2 patch day, related to items or features the patch added?''
 +
** <u>'''Q4'''</u> ''Does the user have consistently good spelling and grammar, and/or do they often correct the bad grammar and spelling of other users?''
 +
** <u>'''Q5'''</u> ''Has the user made good, quick decisions on correcting and reverting other users' edits? This includes patrolling Recent Changes and deleting bad Trivia/Bug contributions.''
 +
** <u>'''Q6'''</u> (If the user is fluent in a non-English language) ''Has the user made highly accurate, localised translations of English articles into other languages?''
 +
*** Since this question cannot be answered by most of the Trusted Users group, the staff will need to try and ensure there is <u>at least one person on the Trusted team, per language, who can assess this honestly</u> (a 'Loc Mod', as [[User:EpicEric|Epic Eric]] calls it).
 +
** <u>'''Q7'''</u> ''Has the user made significant 'technical' edits? This includes creating or fixing templates, renaming pages, redirects and categories.''
 +
** <u>'''Q8'''</u> ''Excluding anything uploaded for personal use, does the user upload files of sufficient quality and usefulness?''
 +
** <u>'''Q9'''</u> ''Has the user made a recognised contribution to one of the wiki's various Projects?''
 +
** <u>'''Q10'''</u> ''Does the user spend time putting the Welcome template on new accounts' Talk pages, or otherwise teach new users about editing techniques and etiquette?''
 +
** <u>'''Q11'''</u> ''Can the user be considered "a friendly regular" in the IRC channel, on the wiki's TF2 server, or somewhere else with a high population of fellow editors?''
 +
* '''Alongside each answer in the above section, one or more links to evidence, whenever possible or appropriate.'''
 +
* A link to the Nomination section on the nominee's Talk Page.
 +
* An overall 'Yes/No' judgement on whether they personally think the user should reach Phase 3.
 +
** Any comments the 'reviewer' wants to make should be left on the user's Talk Page.
 +
 
 +
After the nominee is added to the table, the other Trusted Users can {{c|Agree}}, {{c|Disagree}} and/or {{c|i|Make A Correction}} for each answer on the check-list, and make their own overall 'Yes/No' judgement on the candidate's eligibility for Phase 3.
 +
* If the Trusted Users want to go in-depth on their reasons for Agreeing/Disagreeing with particular points, these comments should be left on the nominee's Talk Page.
 +
* The table will be set up so that only a set number of Trusted Users can reply to a given nomination.
 +
** {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} How many Trusted Users should review a nominee? It has to be an odd number (like 9) to prevent tiebreaker situations.
 +
** {{c|?|Discussion Point (proposed by [[User:Ravecrib9t4|Noble Scout]]:}} Should there be two different types of "reviewer"? One group that does all the preliminary reviews, and another group that only responds to existing reviews?
 +
** {{c|?|Discussion Point (proposed by [[User:Ravecrib9t4|Noble Scout]]:}} Should the Trusted Users have to follow an "average number of reviews per week" rule to keep them active and responsible?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<u>'''MOCKUP:'''</u>
 +
 
 +
{| style="width: 100%; text-align: center;" class="wikitable"
 +
! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:140px" {{!}} Nominee !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q1 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q2 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q3 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q4 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q5 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q6 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q7 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q8 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q9 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q10 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Q11 !! style="background-color: #FFD580; width:40px;" {{!}} Ratio !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Discussion !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Reviewed By !! style="background-color: #FFD580;" {{!}} Verdict
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_A
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|neutral|?}}
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| <u>{{c|+|Y}}</u>
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| 75%
 +
| User talk:Person_A/Wiki Cap Nomination
 +
| User:Person_F
 +
| {{c|+|Mmmhmm}}
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable grid collapsible" style="width: 100%; text-align:center; font-size:90%"
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:125px" | Reviewer
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q1
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q2
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q3
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q4
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q5
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q6
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q7
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q8
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q9
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q10
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957; width:25px;" | Q11
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Notes
 +
!class="sortable header" style="background-color:#F3A957;" | Verdict
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_G
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|neutral|N/A}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| Fully agree; hard-hat's one reliable dude.
 +
| {{c|+|Yeah}}
 +
|-
 +
| User:Person_H
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|i|Y}}
 +
| {{c|neutral|N/A}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| {{c|-|N}}
 +
| {{c|+|Y}}
 +
| Correction: He's űber-fast at fixing ze bad coding. Evidence <u>here</u> unt <u>here</u>.
 +
| {{c|+|Yah}}
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Once all the spaces are filled, the ratio of overall Agreement/Disagreement is checked and the nominee's information will be moved to one of two tables:
 +
* <u>'''Phase 2: Candidates'''</u> if the majority voted 'Yes.
 +
* <u>'''Phase 2: Non-Candidates'''</u> if the majority voted 'No'
 +
** {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} How long should a Phase 2 Non-Candidate be made to wait before they can return to the "Filtered Nominations" table?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Phase 3: Decision (Staff) ===
 +
 
 +
Based on points that [[User:EpicEric|Epic Eric]] and [[User:Keisari|Keisari]] discuss on the [[Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Wiki Cap|staff page]], the Staff portion of the process must avoid a few existing problems: <u>Time-Zones</u>, <u>Responsibility</u>, and <u>IRC Participation</u>. This proposal will provide possible solutions to the first and third problems, and possible reduce the second problem.
 +
 
 +
The wiki staff could host an off-site private voting and discussion system for filtering the Phase 2 Candidates, eventually deciding who earns a Wiki Cap and who doesn't, based on the evidence presented (which should be very easy to read through at this point, having been collected and collated by the Trusted Editors).
 +
 
 +
Presumably, the staff will want to use the Phase 2 system for themselves (table of information with yes/no questions, linked evidence and a final yes/no judgement), but with room to add comments that the other staff members could read. This would be a system where time-zones are irrelevant; the staff member simply visits a webpage and contributes to it in their own time. It's ultimately up to them how they want to handle this Phase (as they might want to include live discussions in the process somewhere), but something is practically certain: A minimum number of staff members have to vote on a nominee before a final decision is reached.
 +
* {{c|?|Discussion Point:}} How many staff members should review a nominee before a final decision is made?
 +
 
 +
Anybody selected for a Wiki Cap would have their information moved to the (invisible) <u>'''Selected Users'''</u> table. If the staff turn somebody down, they'll get moved to the <u>'''Phase 2: Non-Candidates'''</u> table and be subject to the table's "waiting period" before being re-considered for nomination.
 +
 
 +
=== Diagram ===
 +
[[File:User_Mainman_Phase_Syatem_Diagram.png]]
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
...And that should be everything! Please leave some feedback!  [[User:Mainman|<span style="text-shadow:#0099FF 0px 0px 3px;color:steelblue;font-size:95%;font-weight:bold" title="Mainman"><u>Mainman</u></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Mainman|Talk]] ▪ [[Special:Contributions/Mainman|Contribs.]])</sup> 16:52, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
: {{n}} <u>'''UPDATE #1:'''</u> Added the "In a Nutshell..." section, added discussion points suggested by [[User:Ravecrib9t4|Noble Scout]]. [[User:Mainman|<span style="text-shadow:#0099FF 0px 0px 3px;color:steelblue;font-size:95%;font-weight:bold" title="Mainman"><u>Mainman</u></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Mainman|Talk]] ▪ [[Special:Contributions/Mainman|Contribs.]])</sup> 15:43, 1 September 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Discussion Points ===
 +
Please make all your replies in this section, so that the proposal stays in one piece.
 +
 
 +
==== Phase 1 ====
 +
===== Should "have a Wikichievement" be a requirement for the Points system? =====
 +
 
 +
===== How many Points should you need to reach Phase 2? =====
 +
 
 +
===== What kind of % Ratio between Agrees/Disagrees would be appropriate? =====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==== Phase 2 ====
 +
===== How many Trusted Users should there be? =====
 +
 
 +
===== How many Trusted Users should review a nominee? =====
 +
 
 +
===== Should there be a dedicated team of "Preliminary Reviewers"? =====
 +
 
 +
===== Should there be a "minimum activity" rule to keep reviewers active? =====
 +
 
 +
===== After failing Phase 2, how long should users have to wait for a retry? =====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==== Phase 3 ====
 +
===== How many staff members should review a nominee? =====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==== Any Other Business ====
 +
For anything else you want to bring up that isn't listed as a Discussion Point.
 +
:Uhh... well, this seems like a lot of work, but I have several questions, specially about Phases 1 and 2.
 +
:* Wouldn't a single vote be big enough for a high ratio?
 +
:* How would this incentivate users to have a better review on candidates?
 +
:* Since I don't expect people to vote negatively (I can imagine several reasons why), this ratio system wouldn't change a thing.
 +
:* How are Trusted Users selected as Trusted Users?
 +
:* Why do people have to be jacks-of-all-trades to win a Wiki Cap?
 +
:* Don't you think only one Trusted User can be too one-sided for a decent filtering?
 +
:{{n}} [[User:EpicEric|<span style="color:#5885A2;font-size:15px;font-family:'Trebuchet MS';text-shadow:#e3e3e3 1px 1px 0px;"><b>Epic Eric</b></span>]] <small> ([[User talk:EpicEric|T]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/EpicEric|C]])</small> 17:24, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
::* There is also a minimum number of votes. Having one positive vote alone would make your ratio 100%, but you'd remain in Phase 1 until enough votes had been made. Ratios could also be removed from the process entirely (see point #3).
 +
::* The unfortunate truth is, if we allow users to give freeform reasons for their nominations, it's going to produce similar results to the old system. Freeform feedback ''is'' valuable in most cases, and so I made sure to include it in the process while also making sure none of it appears beyond Wave 1 (By the time a nomination gets through Wave 2, the Trusted Users have verified and linked to all the evidence you need to make a good judgement on the nominee).
 +
::* In retrospect, I agree; people seem to have no trouble leaving negative feedback about nominees on the old Nominations page, but leaving the same negative comments on a user's Talk page (where they'll almost definitely read it) is risky and will probably result in arguments. The "ratio" system could be removed and Wave 1 could rely purely on "minimum number of 'Agree' votes" instead.
 +
::* There's already a 'Trusted Users' system visible in the IRC channel; when Spacenet posts an edit, the username is always either green or purple. Green names belong to administrators, moderators, and a select few 'normal' users who have demonstrated that they can be trusted with extra responsibility and powers (editing the IRC channel welcome message, for example). This nomination system would be done the same way; a Trusted User is someone the staff feel can be trusted with higher responsibility, including the fair assessment of wiki cap candidates.
 +
::* The Yes/No questions are only there for reference, to know at-a-glance what the user is good at. The only thing that ultimately matters is their Yes/No "Verdict" votes; if only two of the questions can be answered with "Yes", but the nominee is exceptionally good and valuable in these areas of activity, then they could still get an overall "Yes" verdict.
 +
::* One Trusted User takes it upon themselves to research the evidence and present it in the appropriate table. The job of the other Trusted Users is to verify this evidence, make corrections or additions, and ultimately give a balanced opinion and verdict.
 +
:: {{n}} [[User:Mainman|<span style="text-shadow:#0099FF 0px 0px 3px;color:steelblue;font-size:95%;font-weight:bold" title="Mainman"><u>Mainman</u></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Mainman|Talk]] ▪ [[Special:Contributions/Mainman|Contribs.]])</sup> 11:02, 1 September 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
==== Verdict ====
 +
Put your overall Agree/Disagree points for this proposal here.
 +
 
 +
::'''@Mainman''' Very complex this system and detailed, but it makes it even more hard to nominate people. It is not that they dont care about the person who they nominate but they dont ask themselfs these questions. Most people have 1-4 core elements which makres them nominate the person and that's it. I would prepare a clean approach, with fixed terms which are just added. Positive as negative stated, but shorter and more precise, see above my approach. Maybe we can combine that. [[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] 17:50, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
::Indeed, it is overly complex and just seems too difficult to understand. Perhaps integrating that idea of Pros/Cons and one reason per nomination per person in to the existing system might mix things up enough? [[File:User Wingless Winged Signature.png|150px|link=User:Wingless]] 17:54, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
 +
::The jist of the system seems to crowdsource (someone's gonna hate me for using that word) the "mechanical" verification tasks to a more general public, as well formalizing each step with precise criteria to meet. The crowdsourcing aspect is probably a good thing, as it partially addresses the staff willingness/laziness issue (part of the lack of motivation is, I guess, the amount of work that goes into it. When a wiki cap discussion begins, it's often for a good couple of hours, and no one like to dive into that on a nice sunday). It also has some openness benefits, with the bigger community participating closer. The formalization aspect however is, as it stands, way too complicated for it to be practical. It adds a lot of bureaucractic overhead, of extra enforcement work (when people don't follow the rules), and it would probably put off a large number of people (who would otherwise have contributed) merely by being complex like this. This being said, it's also impossible to crowdsource work without having it framed in a formal system, so some level of formalization has to happen (this is why you have upvotes/downvotes on Reddit or YouTube or Steam Greenlight etc.), but I think this proposal is overdoing it. I do appreciate the level of detail, thought, and research that has gone into this though. Perhaps one day under some distribution systems, that may just warrant a wiki cap :3 — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] 14:27, 1 September 2012 (PDT)
 +
::I like this idea very much and its enjoyable to read and imagine. Its however, as said, too bureaucractic and too complicated. Instead of switching to Phase 1, we could keep the current nomination page, maybe upgrade and improve it a bit, but it still is efficient way to nominate people. I especially would like to see something like the Phase 2 happening. Having motivated, staff selected, Trusted group just to bring up the cold facts, in public, without complicated discussion would really make the seeing ones pros and cons smoother and in the same time involve the non-staff community. My only fear is however, that presenting the cold hard facts does not really remove the staff's final habit to discuss ages for topics like "What kind of work really is worth a cap" (staff members know the usuall topics, meh), so it might be so that this whole new system would not solve absolutely nothing. -- [[User:Keisari|Keisari]] [[File:BottleScreen.png|24px|link=User_talk:Keisari]] 01:28, 2 September 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
== More in- and output on votes discussions etc. ==
 +
 
 +
My solution is simple, let us form around the moderators and admins another circle of trusted people, long stayers and other guys which we can trust (we discuss the trust later, cave said so). And they can also give opinions and insert another viewpoint to another person. I know it sounds stupid but not ever moderator (shame on you speaks) speaks fluent /ar /cs (...) /zh-hant ; so it is nice to get a direct respond from within the wiki community (if there is someone). And i even made an <s>awful</s> awesome picture for that >
 +
 
 +
[[File:User TheDoctor thewikiparliament v0.png|700px]]
 +
 
 +
[[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] 18:04, 2 September 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
== Against <=5 people votes ==
 +
 
 +
Reason is listed there: [[Special:Statistics]] ; Moderators = 23 (100%) <br> 5 people are merely 20% of all people. I think at least 50% of the moderators should be used to discuss this matter. Or at least 40% .  <br> And like Uncle Ben said: "Remember, with great power, comes great responsibility." . <br> [[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] > [[User:TheDoctor#-/+ Wiki-Skills|Add + or - skills for me]] 14:03, 17 October 2012 (PDT)
 +
:First, I'd like to point out that probably only 50% of all the mods in that list are active (as in ''reeeeeally'' active) in the Wiki right now. That said, I'd like to point out that 40% = 9 mods. That number is lower than the number of mods that are in the IRC in average. Also, note that there usually is 3 or 4 mods inactive in the IRC at a time. That gives us 4 mods, maybe 5. However, since only a few of these mods are actually interested in helping in this votes, that gives us... hmm... '''2 mods''' for a discussion (maybe '''3 mods''', or even '''4''', in best-case scenarios). As much as I'd like more people giving their opinions on candidates, it is practically impossible. {{n}} [[User:EpicEric|<span style="color:#5885A2;font-size:15px;font-family:'Trebuchet MS';text-shadow:#e3e3e3 1px 1px 0px;"><b>Epic Eric</b></span>]] <small> ([[User talk:EpicEric|T]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/EpicEric|C]])</small> 08:17, 20 October 2012 (PDT)
 +
::So we have not active moderators? I'm shocked! Why does no one do something about that? [[User:TheDoctor|δ³Σx²]] > [[User:TheDoctor#-/+ Wiki-Skills|Add + or - skills for me]] 08:28, 21 October 2012 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 15:28, 21 October 2012

Round-the-Clock Moderation

Whilst more of a combination of two of the existing ones, has there been a consideration of removing moderators who are inactive (through a discussions of course), then re-hiring around 5-6 moderators who are in different time zones? For instance, 5 mods from UK/West EU, 5 from USA, and 5 from Eest EU/Asia/Oceania. This kind of a set-up should give a strong moderator presence around the clock.

Most other solutions seem like they might not work in a democratic and fair system: non-staff members could easily bias votes if they think un/friendly things about the candidate, static discussions would mean people would put their views and generally not bother to look at it again, and less staff members mean less discussion.

Just some of my views ^^ User Wingless Winged Signature.png 15:14, 29 August 2012 (PDT)

New nomination system idea

Maybe it looks cold on the first look but i think this shortens it, but also makes it more clear what a person does on the wiki Pick 3-5 main points and after that what the person which is nominated also does. Here my suggestions:

Pictogram plus.png  Makes redirects
Pictogram plus.png  Creates new articles in "language"
Pictogram plus.png  Makes grammar corrections
Pictogram plus.png  Deletes bad edits and/or trivia and/or bugs
Pictogram plus.png  Uploads new pictures
Pictogram plus.png  Creates new pictures (paintable hats f.e.)
Pictogram plus.png  Helps new user to improve with informations about a wiki problem
Pictogram plus.png  Creates needed templates
Pictogram plus.png  Updates articles which are outdated in "language"
Pictogram plus.png  Works on the STS for TF2 translations (discussable)

δ³Σx² 08:01, 30 August 2012 (PDT)

That summarizes most of what can be done on the wiki, I'm against relating the wiki cap to the STS though, it's two completely different things. Working on STS shouldn't in any way be related to obtaining a Wiki Cap. The Wiki Cap is a reward for contributing and improving the TF Wiki, not the STS. Tturbo Killicon ambassadorhs unused.png (Speech voice.png / Intel neutral pickedup.png) 08:16, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
I was under the idea that most/all of this was already considered. That and being somewhat active in general. But I agree, the STS stuff doesn't really seem relevant to the wiki. ~Sven~ 08:18, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
So add some more points, which are missing? If people add a person for nomination they often dont insert certain informations, and only some "could be argument". So i think with these we could shorten the nominations but also show what makes this user good(special). δ³Σx² 08:23, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
To be very honest, nomination systems should work by giving examples and not simply saying "oh he does this, and he does that~". There should be very clear and very strong examples as to what the user has contributed to the Wiki, be they overhauls, new pages and a lot of content, or pictures they've uploaded (etc). Small things like redirects and tags (i.e. improveimage, delete, move, etc) should not count towards the main nomination, but definitely can be considered in the final decision-making process as a way of seeing what users do - if it's constant redirects and silly small edits to boost edit count then no, it shouldn't be considered. But if it's all a part of several things then it can be considered if the people behind the final decision wish it to be. Also, STS workers should be a catalyst behind decisions and not a reason for a nomination. User Wingless Winged Signature.png 08:33, 30 August 2012 (PDT)

Three-Phase System Proposal

It's quite sad to see the current system isn't working anymore, especially after I helped to revamp its presentation about a year ago. Helping to fix the mechanics of the process seems like next logical step.

This proposal includes ideas already presented on the staff and user Talk pages; credit is given where credit is due.


In a Nutshell...

  • Wave 1: Someone awards a 'Nomination' wikichievement to another user. People leave feedback on the user's Talk page. The nominee passes Wave 1 if enough people agree with the nomination.
  • Wave 2: A team of moderators and 'trusted' users pick a nominee, gather evidence, do a background check and make a simple review. Other trusted "reviewers" check the facts and leave their own review. Wave 2 is passed if the majority of the reviews agree with the nomination.
  • Wave 3: Staff members look over the evidence and post their own reviews to a private forum. Wave 3 is passed and a Wiki Cap is awarded if most of the participating staff members say "Yes".


Phase 1: Nominations (All Wiki Users)

Firstly, the existing Nominations page would become protected from normal user edits, and mostly update on its own via templates as described below.

The new Nomination process would start on users' Talk pages. After deciding to nominate someone for a Wiki Cap, a user would create a dedicated section on the nominee's Talk page to award them a new 'Nomination' Wikichievement.

  • The "Reasons for Nomination" in the old process would find their home here. Users who 'agree' or 'disagree' with the nomination will cite whatever reasons they think are relevant. Linking to evidence will not be necessary at this point in the process.


MOCKUP:

Wikichievement Nominated By Reasons
Tf scared stiff.png

Cap Nominee
Somebody out there thinks you've got what it takes to wear a Wiki Cap! Do the other wiki users agree? Let's find out...

User:Person_Z I like zis weapo... person. Iz good.
Username Agree/Disagree Reasons
User:Person_B Pictogram plus.png Yes! We have nothing to fear from trusting this man. Our wiki, and our country, are in good hands.
User:Person_C Pictogram minus.png Nah Ah always edit drunk, and I c'n still spell beh'er than 'im!
User:Person_D Pictogram plus.png Yeh Left his dispenser on the barracks for me last week. He's a mate, fer deffo.


The existing Nominations page would have a simple table called Phase 1: Nominations, automatically listing any users with the Wikichievement on their talk page, along with an Agree/Disagree 'points' counter. The counter would be a template that updates its 'Points' scores based on the following:

  • Points are invalid if they don't begin with Pictogram plus.png + / Pictogram minus.png - and end with a user signature.
  • Only one point can be given per user.
    • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: Excluding the proposed 'Nomination' Wikichievement, should there be an additional restriction where users must have at least one Wikichievement to their name for their "Point" to count?

After reaching a minimum number of 'points', while also maintaining a good Agree/Disagree points ratio, the user would automatically move to a table called Phase 1: Candidates.

  • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: What would be a suitable minimum number of points?
  • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: What would be a suitable ratio of Agree/Disagree points?

If the user has a bad Agree/Disagree ratio, then they will automatically be moved to a different table called Phase 1: Non-Candidates until their ratio improves.


MOCKUPS:
Phase 1: Candidates

Nominee Total Points Agree/Disagree Count Ratio
User:Person_A 4 Pictogram plus.png 3 / Pictogram minus.png 1 75%

Phase 1: Non-Candidates

Nominee Total Points Agree/Disagree Count Ratio
User:Person_E 8 Pictogram plus.png 1 / Pictogram minus.png 7 12.5%


Phase 2: Filtering (Trusted Users)

A staff-selected team of users, along with any moderators and staff members who want to help, would hold responsibility for the next step: Manually filtering through the Phase 1 Candidates for those who deserve to reach Phase 3.

  • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: How many users should the staff grant the 'trusted' responsibility to?

Firstly, a Trusted User marks a Phase 1 Candidate as 'selected', which removes the nominee's info from that table and adds them to an invisible one called Selected Users (all users that have Wiki Caps will be in this list too, to prevent re-nomination). The information is manually transferred across to a table called Phase 2: Filtered Nominations. The table would require the following information:

  • A check-list of Yes/No answers to various questions about the user's contributions (as originally suggested by TheDoctor):
    • Q1 Has the user significantly improved an existing article, or made extensive valuable changes to a page that was already good?
    • Q2 Has the user contributed good 'new' pages? (Excluding patch-day additions)
    • Q3 Has the user contributed good 'new' pages on a TF2 patch day, related to items or features the patch added?
    • Q4 Does the user have consistently good spelling and grammar, and/or do they often correct the bad grammar and spelling of other users?
    • Q5 Has the user made good, quick decisions on correcting and reverting other users' edits? This includes patrolling Recent Changes and deleting bad Trivia/Bug contributions.
    • Q6 (If the user is fluent in a non-English language) Has the user made highly accurate, localised translations of English articles into other languages?
      • Since this question cannot be answered by most of the Trusted Users group, the staff will need to try and ensure there is at least one person on the Trusted team, per language, who can assess this honestly (a 'Loc Mod', as Epic Eric calls it).
    • Q7 Has the user made significant 'technical' edits? This includes creating or fixing templates, renaming pages, redirects and categories.
    • Q8 Excluding anything uploaded for personal use, does the user upload files of sufficient quality and usefulness?
    • Q9 Has the user made a recognised contribution to one of the wiki's various Projects?
    • Q10 Does the user spend time putting the Welcome template on new accounts' Talk pages, or otherwise teach new users about editing techniques and etiquette?
    • Q11 Can the user be considered "a friendly regular" in the IRC channel, on the wiki's TF2 server, or somewhere else with a high population of fellow editors?
  • Alongside each answer in the above section, one or more links to evidence, whenever possible or appropriate.
  • A link to the Nomination section on the nominee's Talk Page.
  • An overall 'Yes/No' judgement on whether they personally think the user should reach Phase 3.
    • Any comments the 'reviewer' wants to make should be left on the user's Talk Page.

After the nominee is added to the table, the other Trusted Users can Pictogram plus.png Agree, Pictogram minus.png Disagree and/or Pictogram info.png Make A Correction for each answer on the check-list, and make their own overall 'Yes/No' judgement on the candidate's eligibility for Phase 3.

  • If the Trusted Users want to go in-depth on their reasons for Agreeing/Disagreeing with particular points, these comments should be left on the nominee's Talk Page.
  • The table will be set up so that only a set number of Trusted Users can reply to a given nomination.
    • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: How many Trusted Users should review a nominee? It has to be an odd number (like 9) to prevent tiebreaker situations.
    • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point (proposed by Noble Scout: Should there be two different types of "reviewer"? One group that does all the preliminary reviews, and another group that only responds to existing reviews?
    • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point (proposed by Noble Scout: Should the Trusted Users have to follow an "average number of reviews per week" rule to keep them active and responsible?


MOCKUP:

Nominee Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Ratio Discussion Reviewed By Verdict
User:Person_A Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram neutral.png ? Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y 75% User talk:Person_A/Wiki Cap Nomination User:Person_F Pictogram plus.png Mmmhmm
Reviewer Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Notes Verdict
User:Person_G Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram neutral.png N/A Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y Fully agree; hard-hat's one reliable dude. Pictogram plus.png Yeah
User:Person_H Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram info.png Y Pictogram neutral.png N/A Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y Pictogram minus.png N Pictogram plus.png Y Correction: He's űber-fast at fixing ze bad coding. Evidence here unt here. Pictogram plus.png Yah


Once all the spaces are filled, the ratio of overall Agreement/Disagreement is checked and the nominee's information will be moved to one of two tables:

  • Phase 2: Candidates if the majority voted 'Yes.
  • Phase 2: Non-Candidates if the majority voted 'No'
    • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: How long should a Phase 2 Non-Candidate be made to wait before they can return to the "Filtered Nominations" table?


Phase 3: Decision (Staff)

Based on points that Epic Eric and Keisari discuss on the staff page, the Staff portion of the process must avoid a few existing problems: Time-Zones, Responsibility, and IRC Participation. This proposal will provide possible solutions to the first and third problems, and possible reduce the second problem.

The wiki staff could host an off-site private voting and discussion system for filtering the Phase 2 Candidates, eventually deciding who earns a Wiki Cap and who doesn't, based on the evidence presented (which should be very easy to read through at this point, having been collected and collated by the Trusted Editors).

Presumably, the staff will want to use the Phase 2 system for themselves (table of information with yes/no questions, linked evidence and a final yes/no judgement), but with room to add comments that the other staff members could read. This would be a system where time-zones are irrelevant; the staff member simply visits a webpage and contributes to it in their own time. It's ultimately up to them how they want to handle this Phase (as they might want to include live discussions in the process somewhere), but something is practically certain: A minimum number of staff members have to vote on a nominee before a final decision is reached.

  • Pictogram question.png Discussion Point: How many staff members should review a nominee before a final decision is made?

Anybody selected for a Wiki Cap would have their information moved to the (invisible) Selected Users table. If the staff turn somebody down, they'll get moved to the Phase 2: Non-Candidates table and be subject to the table's "waiting period" before being re-considered for nomination.

Diagram

User Mainman Phase Syatem Diagram.png

...And that should be everything! Please leave some feedback! Mainman (TalkContribs.) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (PDT)

 –  UPDATE #1: Added the "In a Nutshell..." section, added discussion points suggested by Noble Scout. Mainman (TalkContribs.) 15:43, 1 September 2012 (PDT)


Discussion Points

Please make all your replies in this section, so that the proposal stays in one piece.

Phase 1

Should "have a Wikichievement" be a requirement for the Points system?
How many Points should you need to reach Phase 2?
What kind of % Ratio between Agrees/Disagrees would be appropriate?

Phase 2

How many Trusted Users should there be?
How many Trusted Users should review a nominee?
Should there be a dedicated team of "Preliminary Reviewers"?
Should there be a "minimum activity" rule to keep reviewers active?
After failing Phase 2, how long should users have to wait for a retry?

Phase 3

How many staff members should review a nominee?

Any Other Business

For anything else you want to bring up that isn't listed as a Discussion Point.

Uhh... well, this seems like a lot of work, but I have several questions, specially about Phases 1 and 2.
  • Wouldn't a single vote be big enough for a high ratio?
  • How would this incentivate users to have a better review on candidates?
  • Since I don't expect people to vote negatively (I can imagine several reasons why), this ratio system wouldn't change a thing.
  • How are Trusted Users selected as Trusted Users?
  • Why do people have to be jacks-of-all-trades to win a Wiki Cap?
  • Don't you think only one Trusted User can be too one-sided for a decent filtering?
 –  Epic Eric (T | C) 17:24, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
  • There is also a minimum number of votes. Having one positive vote alone would make your ratio 100%, but you'd remain in Phase 1 until enough votes had been made. Ratios could also be removed from the process entirely (see point #3).
  • The unfortunate truth is, if we allow users to give freeform reasons for their nominations, it's going to produce similar results to the old system. Freeform feedback is valuable in most cases, and so I made sure to include it in the process while also making sure none of it appears beyond Wave 1 (By the time a nomination gets through Wave 2, the Trusted Users have verified and linked to all the evidence you need to make a good judgement on the nominee).
  • In retrospect, I agree; people seem to have no trouble leaving negative feedback about nominees on the old Nominations page, but leaving the same negative comments on a user's Talk page (where they'll almost definitely read it) is risky and will probably result in arguments. The "ratio" system could be removed and Wave 1 could rely purely on "minimum number of 'Agree' votes" instead.
  • There's already a 'Trusted Users' system visible in the IRC channel; when Spacenet posts an edit, the username is always either green or purple. Green names belong to administrators, moderators, and a select few 'normal' users who have demonstrated that they can be trusted with extra responsibility and powers (editing the IRC channel welcome message, for example). This nomination system would be done the same way; a Trusted User is someone the staff feel can be trusted with higher responsibility, including the fair assessment of wiki cap candidates.
  • The Yes/No questions are only there for reference, to know at-a-glance what the user is good at. The only thing that ultimately matters is their Yes/No "Verdict" votes; if only two of the questions can be answered with "Yes", but the nominee is exceptionally good and valuable in these areas of activity, then they could still get an overall "Yes" verdict.
  • One Trusted User takes it upon themselves to research the evidence and present it in the appropriate table. The job of the other Trusted Users is to verify this evidence, make corrections or additions, and ultimately give a balanced opinion and verdict.
 –  Mainman (TalkContribs.) 11:02, 1 September 2012 (PDT)

Verdict

Put your overall Agree/Disagree points for this proposal here.

@Mainman Very complex this system and detailed, but it makes it even more hard to nominate people. It is not that they dont care about the person who they nominate but they dont ask themselfs these questions. Most people have 1-4 core elements which makres them nominate the person and that's it. I would prepare a clean approach, with fixed terms which are just added. Positive as negative stated, but shorter and more precise, see above my approach. Maybe we can combine that. δ³Σx² 17:50, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
Indeed, it is overly complex and just seems too difficult to understand. Perhaps integrating that idea of Pros/Cons and one reason per nomination per person in to the existing system might mix things up enough? User Wingless Winged Signature.png 17:54, 31 August 2012 (PDT)
The jist of the system seems to crowdsource (someone's gonna hate me for using that word) the "mechanical" verification tasks to a more general public, as well formalizing each step with precise criteria to meet. The crowdsourcing aspect is probably a good thing, as it partially addresses the staff willingness/laziness issue (part of the lack of motivation is, I guess, the amount of work that goes into it. When a wiki cap discussion begins, it's often for a good couple of hours, and no one like to dive into that on a nice sunday). It also has some openness benefits, with the bigger community participating closer. The formalization aspect however is, as it stands, way too complicated for it to be practical. It adds a lot of bureaucractic overhead, of extra enforcement work (when people don't follow the rules), and it would probably put off a large number of people (who would otherwise have contributed) merely by being complex like this. This being said, it's also impossible to crowdsource work without having it framed in a formal system, so some level of formalization has to happen (this is why you have upvotes/downvotes on Reddit or YouTube or Steam Greenlight etc.), but I think this proposal is overdoing it. I do appreciate the level of detail, thought, and research that has gone into this though. Perhaps one day under some distribution systems, that may just warrant a wiki cap :3 — Wind 14:27, 1 September 2012 (PDT)
I like this idea very much and its enjoyable to read and imagine. Its however, as said, too bureaucractic and too complicated. Instead of switching to Phase 1, we could keep the current nomination page, maybe upgrade and improve it a bit, but it still is efficient way to nominate people. I especially would like to see something like the Phase 2 happening. Having motivated, staff selected, Trusted group just to bring up the cold facts, in public, without complicated discussion would really make the seeing ones pros and cons smoother and in the same time involve the non-staff community. My only fear is however, that presenting the cold hard facts does not really remove the staff's final habit to discuss ages for topics like "What kind of work really is worth a cap" (staff members know the usuall topics, meh), so it might be so that this whole new system would not solve absolutely nothing. -- Keisari BottleScreen.png 01:28, 2 September 2012 (PDT)

More in- and output on votes discussions etc.

My solution is simple, let us form around the moderators and admins another circle of trusted people, long stayers and other guys which we can trust (we discuss the trust later, cave said so). And they can also give opinions and insert another viewpoint to another person. I know it sounds stupid but not ever moderator (shame on you speaks) speaks fluent /ar /cs (...) /zh-hant ; so it is nice to get a direct respond from within the wiki community (if there is someone). And i even made an awful awesome picture for that >

User TheDoctor thewikiparliament v0.png

δ³Σx² 18:04, 2 September 2012 (PDT)

Against <=5 people votes

Reason is listed there: Special:Statistics ; Moderators = 23 (100%)
5 people are merely 20% of all people. I think at least 50% of the moderators should be used to discuss this matter. Or at least 40% .
And like Uncle Ben said: "Remember, with great power, comes great responsibility." .
δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 14:03, 17 October 2012 (PDT)

First, I'd like to point out that probably only 50% of all the mods in that list are active (as in reeeeeally active) in the Wiki right now. That said, I'd like to point out that 40% = 9 mods. That number is lower than the number of mods that are in the IRC in average. Also, note that there usually is 3 or 4 mods inactive in the IRC at a time. That gives us 4 mods, maybe 5. However, since only a few of these mods are actually interested in helping in this votes, that gives us... hmm... 2 mods for a discussion (maybe 3 mods, or even 4, in best-case scenarios). As much as I'd like more people giving their opinions on candidates, it is practically impossible.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 08:17, 20 October 2012 (PDT)
So we have not active moderators? I'm shocked! Why does no one do something about that? δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 08:28, 21 October 2012 (PDT)