Nookipedia talk:Staff/Apply

Proposal of Application Process
Hey guys - since the beginning of Nookipedia, staff members have been promoted based on closed discussions amongst current staff members. Our system is flawed for several reasons, most important being: A more formal, open process has been in the back of everyone's minds for a while, but it was never put into action (until now). I've created an application page, which revolves around these basic principles: This is all tentative and up for discussion. It's what I think is the best system, but if anyone else has suggestions, comments, or changes, please say so! Feel free to edit the page, too. Thanks guys. ~Super Hamster  Talk 21:33, 10 November 2012 (EST)
 * Discussions took place on the Bulletin Board, which is unattached from the wiki and, as was seen with the recent downtime, caused hold-ups
 * Editors could not easily see the discussions regarding why they were or weren't promoted
 * It's hard for editors to "apply" for a staff position, since there is no formal process
 * A user can apply themselves or nominate someone else for a position, with their permission
 * Editors can comment and any staff members vote
 * A Director, Bureaucrat, or Administrator, a week after the nomination, determines whether a promotion is successful, based on staff votes, and also on editor comments

leem01
I quite like the idea of this page and the template for ways for users to apply. As I was reading this, I remembered [|this page] that we had drafted as an application page. Although I like the practicality of the wiki one, I quite like the design of the html page one. However I do like the idea with actually making a form that users can submit.  Leem  0 1 12:29, 11 November 2012 (EST)
 * The form sounds like a real nice idea, too. Would be much easier to use. I'd support that, though we'd need Jake to do his code-magic. ~Super Hamster  Talk 12:35, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Implementation
Since we've left discussion open for a few days, I've gone ahead and implemented the application process. We can adjust kinks as time goes on (if we need to), and if we ever get the form-applications mentioned above by Leem working, we can switch to that. ~Super Hamster  Talk 01:37, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Proposed adjustments
Proposing a few changes to our application process/policy: Feedback appreciated. Thanks, ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 16:05, July 23, 2021 (EDT)
 * Proposal A: I'd like to formalize a minimum support percentage to succeed. Since our process says that votes are technically supposed to be a consensus, I think it's reasonable to say that a successful candidate should have at least 65% of voting staff in support. Anything lower would be a bit concerning to me, since a user that only has the support of just over half of staff isn't a very strong vote of confidence.
 * Proposal B: Our minimum contribution requirement is 200 mainspace edits to self-nominate. I'd like to add that an editor needs to have been around for at least two months. It's fairly easy for some dedicated editors to rack up 200 edits in a weekend, but a proper analysis of an editor requires seeing how they communicate, their experience in different editing areas, etc., and that takes a while to surface. Like the 200-edit minimum, this requirement would be waived when being nominated by a staff member.
 * Proposal C: We currently have that 90-day wait period after an unsuccessful run. Several staff on Discord expressed wanting to reduce this to 60 days, which I think is a good idea—there are cases when an application is close to passing and the editor just needs 1-2 more months of editing to succeed.
 * I proposal A and C, but for proposal B, I do have concerns over the two month requirement. It's a fair deal since we want to have an experience in editing and communications, but I feel like it's a bit too long. A suggestion would be to have it between 1 month and 2 months, like 6 to 9 weeks. Another suggestion would be to account for activity instead. So like if there's a prolific user that has been engaged with the community and is more active around the wiki for an entire month, it could be possible to have them apply for staff too. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 22:05, July 23, 2021 (EDT)


 * for all three proposals. The only issue I have is with proposal A. Strong/weak supports and opposes wouldn't mean anything anymore, so I'd suggest removing those options and just having Support, Oppose and Neutral. Drago   (talk)     Drago PC Villager Icon.png 11:26, July 24, 2021 (EDT)


 * proposal B in its entirety. I hear what you're saying about 2 months being too long,, but it's not uncommon for users to have a month or two of intense activity and then fall off the map as their interest in the game wanes. Because staff members are expected to maintain a prolonged period of activity, I think two months is warranted. If we feel there is potential there earlier than two months, a staff member will nominate them.


 * I agree with about proposal A, that a 65% approval would make the gradation of approval/disapproval meaningless. However I like the strong/weak system, and think we could still use it to influence other aspects of the application process, specifically as it concerns Proposal C. I think that any candidate who received any "Strongly Oppose" votes should have to wait 90 days. Any candidate who received any "Oppose" votes should have to wait 60 days. And any candidate who received only "Weak Oppose" could reapply in 45 days.


 * In regard to positive supports, I think that a user who receives 75%+ strong supports should be able to advance from editor to admin or admin to EiC.


 * Also, I notice that there's no information in regard to promotion once you've already become a staff member, and the Staff page implies that Bureaucrats and Directors determine promotions, and that existing staff cannot nominate themselves. It might be helpful to clarify the process by which existing staff can apply for another position and whether there are any formal time requirements. Sunmarshsignature.png  ( talk )  18:46, July 24, 2021 (EDT)


 * I don't agree that anyone should be jumping from not being on the staff straight to admin (we could actually make that a rule, but that's for another time). Other than that, your suggestions sound good! Drago   (talk)     Drago PC Villager Icon.png 10:36, July 25, 2021 (EDT)

Proposed adjustments part 2
Following on from SuperHamster's proposals above, I have another proposal I'd like to suggest. Currently, editors must make at least 200 article edits before they can apply for staff. But useful contributions here can extend beyond articles.

Therefore, I propose that we increase the requirement to 300 edits, but those 300 edits can be a combination of the Main, Item, File, Template and Category namespaces; basically, this is what I would consider to be the mainspace. I'm aware that this proposal would make it harder to calculate whether someone's eligible or not, but maybe the edit counter can be tweaked to add together the totals from those five namespaces? Drago  (talk)      11:17, September 17, 2021 (EDT)
 * - I think this is a great idea and it also encourages users to make edits in multiple areas. I'm not sure what methods we're currently using to determine edit count, as Special:Editcount still seems to be inaccurate. I think the easiest way would be to use Special:Contributions, and then using the search tools, select the User namespace and then check the box "Invert selection". To arrive at the number of contributions you could search the number of times "change visibility" appears on the page (or "diff" or "hist"). We might also want to specify whether minor edits qualify towards the count. I would suggest that they don't. Sunmarshsignature.png  ( talk )  17:51, September 17, 2021 (EDT)