Fandom

Spinpasta Wiki

Proposal: Get rid of the Request Pages

  • Princess Callie
    Princess Callie closed this thread because:
    passing thread
    06:34, June 12, 2014

    Yep. I'm proposing to get rid of these. Usually, I wouldn't have to, but since Fatal has decided that it would be better to keep them we have opted for a community decision.

    Why would I want to get rid of something where a user could express their opinion? Because no one uses them, no creates applications, no one has anything to do with them. They need to be gone. They are doing nothing but taking up space and the community only gets the say of "support" or "oppose". Very rarely are applications considered soley by community action. It's slightly involved, but we generally judge by job merit.

    All admins have the ability to grant rights. Fatal, Skelly and I grant admin and bureaucrat on top of the other three, which admins can grant. (rollback, RCaDC, and Chat Moderator) It wouldn't necessarily be a barrage on all of our talk pages, and the size of the community is too small to have these.

    What do I propose in return? All staff can decide upon the three universal rights. This can be disputed by another admin, if they have a reason behind why said person shouldn't have the right. It can also be disputed by the individual via reporting wrongdoings or power abuse, and can be disputed by the community itself via thread. Bureaucrats have the additional ability to decide upon administrators and other crats, but heavy discussion can also be put into it.

    But where's your say in who gets the rights? Well, during the time between selecting a user for a right and actually granting the right (varying from instant for rollback, 5 days for Chat Mod, 10 days for RCaDC, and 15 for admin, with 20 for bureaucrat.) a thread will come up on an occasional basis. (We wouldn't be promoting willy nilly. Whereas we will promote on an as needed basis, at best we would demote inactive users and select new ones every 3 months.) You can input your opinion and facts behind the behavior of the user, and we will investigate.

    Prereqs will also be dictated for the users selected for rights, not dependant on edits and other things, but dependant upon: Their ability to help the wiki, their skills in editing, whether it is fixing broken redirects or correcting grammar, their time on the wiki, their previous experience and their general attitude towards the user base. Basically, the community gets a fair opinion but rights can be chosen on an as needed basis or a set time of every three months, the latter being the usual case.

    This is a much fairer system to both the user base itself and the staff of the wiki. It would also gain a slight bit more notice and since it will be instituted by staff, more use.

    Support Support -
    {{Support}}
    Neutral Neutral -
    {{Neutral}}
    Oppose Oppose -
    {{Oppose}}
      Loading editor
    • Fatal Disease
      Fatal Disease removed this reply because:
      change of vote
      10:43, June 7, 2014
      This reply has been removed

      Support Support - Don't delete the pages, archive it. And I think it should be every month, not three months.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I haven't been here for that long, but with that in mind, I know from experience that Requests pages are almost always going to fall hopelessly back on admin decision anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Fatal Disease
      Fatal Disease removed this reply because:
      Previous vote comment
      01:34, June 7, 2014
      This reply has been removed
      Fatal Disease wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - The apps are more of an organization. It's like getting rid of Trollpastas app page, because they're not used. And I don't agree with user's making a thread, clogging up the forum spaces with rights and making it unorganized for users to maintain this. I can still see All you really need to do is to distribute the apps page. Make it more popular. If a user deserves the right, notify them on their talk page. Either way, you're still going to have to notify them. Because the user doesn't know about the right. And the apps give the prereqs on the page. So, what you're saying, is that if CreepypastaFan is a dedicated user, I have the ability to promote him to RCaDC, despite the fact that he has a low edit count?! I still believe that there should be an app page for organization, prereqs, and order maintaining on the wiki.

      For one, there would still be the order of promotion. An intern wouldn't get promoted to CEO in a day.

      And users wouldn't be making a thread. Staff would make an informative thread detailing who they've chosen for each right. Users could place input on that thread.

        Loading editor
    • Fatal Disease
      Fatal Disease removed this reply because:
      Change of vote
      01:34, June 7, 2014
      This reply has been removed

      Princess Callie wrote:

      Fatal Disease wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - The apps are more of an organization. It's like getting rid of Trollpastas app page, because they're not used. And I don't agree with user's making a thread, clogging up the forum spaces with rights and making it unorganized for users to maintain this. I can still see All you really need to do is to distribute the apps page. Make it more popular. If a user deserves the right, notify them on their talk page. Either way, you're still going to have to notify them. Because the user doesn't know about the right. And the apps give the prereqs on the page. So, what you're saying, is that if CreepypastaFan is a dedicated user, I have the ability to promote him to RCaDC, despite the fact that he has a low edit count?! I still believe that there should be an app page for organization, prereqs, and order maintaining on the wiki.

      For one, there would still be the order of promotion. An intern wouldn't get promoted to CEO in a day.

      And users wouldn't be making a thread. Staff would make an informative thread detailing who they've chosen for each right. Users could place input on that thread.

      It IS a sleepy wiki, like you said. The only users who are active are the one's who actually make pages, Megafan, Mike, myself, and with the occasional help with SG and Goddy. There won't be anyone to come around in a long time. So who will be suggested? Mike for 'crat? Goddy for administrator? Megafan for RCaDC? There's no user's, other than those, to make those rights.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I was thinking this place is a bit too small for the kind of "Requests" system we have on CPW.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - The reason why I change my vote from support to oppose is because of one reason: it's a small wiki.

      I do agree that they should be taken away, but there is are major downsides to this. Eventually, what if you run out of users? This is a very sleepy wiki; there are not a lot of users who edit on here. Let's say that after all the good people are done with nominations (such as Goddy for admin, and Megafan for RCaDC [ no more chat mod apps because the chat is sleepy and no more crat apps because we do not need 4 crats and 3 admins ]), then what will happen? Megafan for admin? Or just postpone it for another three months? Or are we just going to nominate inactive users? Then a user that is exactly like Skelly comes around, and the administration is all stoked about him being a rollback, but he has to wait another three months in order to get nominated. Rather than making an application.

      Another thing is that it will be a pain in the ass to find good users. It's a small wiki to begin with, and the majority of the users are not those competent editors like me and you. Like I said, will we just nominate inactive users? Or will we postpone it? Or will we nominate users like Lalalei, but the only thing that they do is add the deletnow template, or give critique on articles. Then a great editor comes out, gets 400 edits within the week, recognized by administration, and is a good candidate for rollback. But he has to wait another three months, because voting has been postponed

      To me, it's more easier to make an app, so that no waiting hassles can happen. You can remove the time periods, and the prerequsites that you have to have this right before you apply, then make a thread saying that notices the apps, states you have all the time in the world, states you don't have to be scared, and the other reason you said to me in CPW chat last night.

        Loading editor
    • Fatal Disease wrote:
      Oppose Oppose - The reason why I change my vote from support to oppose is because of one reason: it's a small wiki.

      I do agree that they should be taken away, but there is are major downsides to this. Eventually, what if you run out of users? This is a very sleepy wiki; there are not a lot of users who edit on here. Let's say that after all the good people are done with nominations (such as Goddy for admin, and Megafan for RCaDC [ no more chat mod apps because the chat is sleepy and no more crat apps because we do not need 4 crats and 3 admins ]), then what will happen? Megafan for admin? Or just postpone it for another three months? Or are we just going to nominate inactive users? Then a user that is exactly like Skelly comes around, and the administration is all stoked about him being a rollback, but he has to wait another three months in order to get nominated. Rather than making an application.

      Another thing is that it will be a pain in the ass to find good users. It's a small wiki to begin with, and the majority of the users are not those competent editors like me and you. Like I said, will we just nominate inactive users? Or will we postpone it? Or will we nominate users like Lalalei, but the only thing that they do is add the deletnow template, or give critique on articles. Then a great editor comes out, gets 400 edits within the week, recognized by administration, and is a good candidate for rollback. But he has to wait another three months, because voting has been postponed

      To me, it's more easier to make an app, so that no waiting hassles can happen. You can remove the time periods, and the prerequsites that you have to have this right before you apply, then make a thread saying that notices the apps, states you have all the time in the world, states you don't have to be scared, and the other reason you said to me in CPW chat last night.

      We wouldn't be sitting there promoting every user. The time periods still go as needed. If we need an admin, we gain an admin, if we need an RCaDC, we gain an RCaDC. If we don't, then we don't.

        Loading editor
    • If I may put my two cents in.

      On my home wiki, w:c:mhfanon, where I am bureaucrat/admin at, we have a prerequisites listing and we don't allow applications (because there's some users who really don't deserve or can't handle the position, but would get voted in because it'd be a popularity contest), but rather give rights on an as-needed basis. We keep a steady number of administrators and bureaucrats (3 and 3 respectively, I think), Chat Moderators, and Rollbacks, because it (like this wiki) is a sleepy Wiki. It's more active now than ever, but it's still sleepy. With our system, we can ensure that at least one user with administrator rights, one chat moderator, and one rollback is, at point in day-to-day operation, present to handle vandalism and spam--which are really some of the only problems that exist in literature wikis; edit wars, information checking, and keeping updated are almost completely nonexistent in literature wikis, since it goes on an each-to-his-own basis.

      Maybe you could have a system of user-rights in which users can display their desire, but not be voted upon, for a position (a page like "Interest in Administration" or "Interest in RCaDC", etc.), so that the admins know a good starting point if they're ever suddenly left without good enough staffing.

      Another idea is like how central does it: a secure google docs or something, in which is contained a small list of viable applicants for positions. When in need, use it to find users.

      As far as Applications go, I see them as almost a popularity contest in some wikis, considering how a vandal pr other nonconstructive editor that just happened to be really liked could get into the position.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - This was it's easier.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - I don't understand what the harm is in leaving them up. How does it hurt us as a wiki?

      I believe in opportunity. I think if a user is responsible, eloquent, and generally a well-rounded user, but maybe not necessarily the most social or widely-known person on the wiki, he or she should still have the opportunity to make themselves known to staff and move up the ladder. Requests is that opportunity. Making it such that the only way to move up in the wiki is to depend on having the good fortune/blind luck of someone else noticing you and deciding to take action on it isn't self-driven opportunity at all. If anything, it feels like a military state.

        Loading editor
    • I think the idea is watch for users who deserve the position, rather than let them nominate themselves. There's good and bad sides to everything, I think.

        Loading editor
    • Master Ceadeus 27 wrote: I think the idea is watch for users who deserve the position, rather than let them nominate themselves. There's good and bad sides to everything, I think.

      But here's the thing. If a user applies for a right, the bureaucrat/administrator can check their contributions and see if they are eligible. The user may not be recognized by the community, because I only check the recent wiki activity for pages, while the rest are just inactive (or that they just only care about one wiki, and that's the home wiki). I don't know who is a compatible editor, or who isn't, because I don't check that area. I only check the recent pages that users created, stroll around on random accounts, and the random page.

      That's where the right process comes in. A user who I do not know about pops up on the "Requests for Rollback" page, and I check their contributions. If they have supports on the app and meet the prereqs, then I'll promote them. If they have opposes, and there's good reason for the oppose, or that they do not meet the prereqs, then I don't promote the user.

      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Oppose Oppose - I don't understand what the harm is in leaving them up. How does it hurt us as a wiki?

      Apparently, to respond to the view of the two bureaucrats voting support, this wiki is really "small" and "sleepy".

      Towards the user that proposed this, there are three other reasons (I think). First reason: They are unused. The only users that have applied on there is Callie, myself, Mike, and Ultimate. Reason two: Users might be afraid to make an application. Third reason: There are good users on here who meet the editing prereqs, but they do not meet the time prereq (the time period that a user, who is applying, must meet before applying.)

      My response on the reasons is that make a thread and highlight it. Make the applications well-known, rather than something as a decoration on the front page. Alert people who are afraid to make an application on the site that there is no need to fear making an app. If you get supports and no opposes (or bullshit opposes), and their contributions are good. Congrats, you'll be promoted to that right. If there are opposes that state reasons as to why you shouldn't have the right, and they are facts. Then the app is closed and you need to perfect on that one thing before you re-apply. It's nothing serious. It's critique. Everyone needs critique in their lives. Just perfect that, and you can re-apply. And, due to time reasons, why not just get rid of them? Why not get rid of the prereqs for having a certain right before applying for RCaDC and administrator? Only keep that the prereq for bureaucrat, which will be a right that no one will apply again, that you must have the administrator right.



      This is unrelated: If this does get passed, I think that there shouldn't be any more administrators on the wiki. The deletion appeal is sleepy (so that makes me the only one doing all of it), and the fact that RCaDC can view the latest revision of the deleted article. Unless if they were stripped of this privilege, the deletion appeal is heavily active, and if the chat is active, I can see allowing more administrators on the site. Unless if it's not, then I don't see anymore RCaDC members being promoted into administrators.

        Loading editor
    • Master Ceadeus 27 wrote:
      If I may put my two cents in.

      On my home wiki, w:c:mhfanon, where I am bureaucrat/admin at, we have a prerequisites listing and we don't allow applications (because there's some users who really don't deserve or can't handle the position, but would get voted in because it'd be a popularity contest), but rather give rights on an as-needed basis. We keep a steady number of administrators and bureaucrats (3 and 3 respectively, I think), Chat Moderators, and Rollbacks, because it (like this wiki) is a sleepy Wiki. It's more active now than ever, but it's still sleepy. With our system, we can ensure that at least one user with administrator rights, one chat moderator, and one rollback is, at point in day-to-day operation, present to handle vandalism and spam--which are really some of the only problems that exist in literature wikis; edit wars, information checking, and keeping updated are almost completely nonexistent in literature wikis, since it goes on an each-to-his-own basis.

      Maybe you could have a system of user-rights in which users can display their desire, but not be voted upon, for a position (a page like "Interest in Administration" or "Interest in RCaDC", etc.), so that the admins know a good starting point if they're ever suddenly left without good enough staffing.

      Another idea is like how central does it: a secure google docs or something, in which is contained a small list of viable applicants for positions. When in need, use it to find users.

      As far as Applications go, I see them as almost a popularity contest in some wikis, considering how a vandal pr other nonconstructive editor that just happened to be really liked could get into the position.

      I like the idea of a secure document.

      Part of the reason I want the Request pages gone, in response to Fatal, is partly because of that.  It feels more like the community is given an opinion but the end result, it doesn't actually matter. A community would say "SUPPORT" and then someone say "OPPOSE, fuck no. This guy vandalized a page!"

      This way, we are keeping track and the community is not subject to some messy system that basically says "You get your opinion, but it doesn't actually matter."

      Also, getting the pages more known isn't going to help them actually be used.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Callie wrote: It feels more like the community is given an opinion but the end result, it doesn't actually matter. A community would say "SUPPORT" and then someone say "OPPOSE, fuck no. This guy vandalized a page!"

      This way, we are keeping track and the community is not subject to some messy system that basically says "You get your opinion, but it doesn't actually matter."

      Also, getting the pages more known isn't going to help them actually be used.

      Well, really, that's how a lot of people, myself included, do the rights system is by having the community decide who should deserve the right. I will agree that if a users opinions are not really well respected on this. It can take one good oppose to make the app automatically close. But, hey, it's like that with the rights on Creepypasta and Trollpasta. I mean, look at OneWithManyNames' mod app on Creepypasta wiki and Habergeon's rollback app on Trollpasta. See how both got supports, but they got rejected due to past issues and inactivity? I was pissed off when I told you why you should propose this over on both wiki's, because I wasn't really full on the facts as to why you should propose for both site's to remove the requests. Now those two are the exact reasons as to why. But, that's off topic. We must continue on the topic.

      Another thing is that I hate delays. If I want to promote a good user, badly, I would tell him to make an application, and wait till 10 days and see where the community stands on his point. Either way, people will not agree with both reasons. There will be biased opinions everywhere you go.

      Also, I don't really necessary agree on a secured document, since it feels unfair for users to be not known about who'll be promoted to a certain right or not (because a lot of people may not want rights on wikia's, and they just want to be anonymous). What I propose, since I know that the supports will topple over the opposes, is that there should be an admin meeting which will consist of Callie, SG, myself, and Mike (the active and semi-active administration on the site that can add RCaDC and Rollback rights) every month to discuss about certain users and their progress, and who deserves which right or not. If there is no-one, then no-one gets nominated. If there is someone that deserves a right, then the admin that volunteers to do the promotion must create a thread on these things:

      Introduction
      Reason's why the user deserves the right
      Conclusion

      Then the administrator that is doing the promotion must highlight it, and allow the users (other than the administration) to discuss if the user deserves it, or not. If, however, an administrator feels as though that they are quite positive that a certain user is a good match, and a good candidate for that right, then they must get contact between the users on the site. To ignore all the issues, there should be a certain amount of supports and opposes allowed on the thread (or app, if we decide to keep them). On the thread, it must take at least 2/3rd's of the administration that partake in this event to agree in a oppose created by a user that is replying. If it's full of opposes, then the user being proposed the right doesn't get the right. If there are mixed views, then there must be at least a majority vote of the votes that were petitioned by users.

      I do not want the administration to be behind all the rights. I want at least SOME community decision between this. Removing community decisions, for me, feels like that we are the over-lords of this wiki; we will punish those who do not agree with our opinions. Basically, if we remove community decisions on talking about users wanting right, we look like communists.

      That's just me, but I really do not want the administration to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. It seems unfair to the community.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I do not see a huge point in having them, especially when little to no one actually uses them.

        Loading editor
    • Upon checking the Requests page, it seems that the most recent was February 18 2014, and it was granted. But upon checking all the others, two groupings had no applications at all, and others had maybe 1-3 closed ones. That shows that they're really not used that often.

      However, you guys could compromise: set up a special forum just for users who want to help out, and inside that maybe a subtopic where users can display their desire to help using certain user rights, and can display their reasoning, contributions, etc., which would get them noticed by the Administration. If the administration decides to make them a nominee, put it in a list (maybe that "secure document" idea? ;) ) and when the need arises, or after Staff (not just admins, all active users with rights) discussion, make a new topic asking the Community of their opinion. This'll give users the time to make sure this is what they want, and the community time to react to the possible new [local] staff member. In this way, it won't surprise users (as long as it's made a topic or similar), and they can display their desire or distaste for the idea.

      In this way, "applications", per se, are eliminated, while still keeping around the old Roman way of democracy. Plus, you don't get surprised users who don't know what hit them when a new user gets added to the local Staff roster!

        Loading editor
    • Master Ceadeus 27 wrote:
      Upon checking the Requests page, it seems that the most recent was February 18 2014, and it was granted. But upon checking all the others, two groupings had no applications at all, and others had maybe 1-3 closed ones. That shows that they're really not used that often.

      However, you guys could compromise: set up a special forum just for users who want to help out, and inside that maybe a subtopic where users can display their desire to help using certain user rights, and can display their reasoning, contributions, etc., which would get them noticed by the Administration. If the administration decides to make them a nominee, put it in a list (maybe that "secure document" idea? ;) ) and when the need arises, or after Staff (not just admins, all active users with rights) discussion, make a new topic asking the Community of their opinion. This'll give users the time to make sure this is what they want, and the community time to react to the possible new [local] staff member. In this way, it won't surprise users (as long as it's made a topic or similar), and they can display their desire or distaste for the idea.

      In this way, "applications", per se, are eliminated, while still keeping around the old Roman way of democracy. Plus, you don't get surprised users who don't know what hit them when a new user gets added to the local Staff roster!

      Basically this.

        Loading editor
    • Fatal Disease wrote:

      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Oppose Oppose - I don't understand what the harm is in leaving them up. How does it hurt us as a wiki?

      Apparently, to respond to the view of the two bureaucrats voting support, this wiki is really "small" and "sleepy".

      Towards the user that proposed this, there are three other reasons (I think). First reason: They are unused. The only users that have applied on there is Callie, myself, Mike, and Ultimate. Reason two: Users might be afraid to make an application. Third reason: There are good users on here who meet the editing prereqs, but they do not meet the time prereq (the time period that a user, who is applying, must meet before applying.)

      But how does keeping the page up CAUSE HARM? Being rarely used is no reason to take them down. It maintains the opportunity for those who do use the page, even if that group is a minority.

      If someone becomes a mod by means of current authorities noticing them and offering them the opportunity, great. This option should still exist for those members having trouble getting noticed, despite meeting all requisites for the position.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:
      Fatal Disease wrote:

      Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Oppose Oppose - I don't understand what the harm is in leaving them up. How does it hurt us as a wiki?

      Apparently, to respond to the view of the two bureaucrats voting support, this wiki is really "small" and "sleepy".

      Towards the user that proposed this, there are three other reasons (I think). First reason: They are unused. The only users that have applied on there is Callie, myself, Mike, and Ultimate. Reason two: Users might be afraid to make an application. Third reason: There are good users on here who meet the editing prereqs, but they do not meet the time prereq (the time period that a user, who is applying, must meet before applying.)

      But how does keeping the page up CAUSE HARM? Being rarely used is no reason to take them down. It maintains the opportunity for those who do use the page, even if that group is a minority.

      If someone becomes a mod by means of current authorities noticing them and offering them the opportunity, great. This option should still exist for those members having trouble getting noticed, despite meeting all requisites for the position.

      Caedus has already proposed a solution for that. A special forum for those who are interested to have input and be possibly put on the list.

        Loading editor
    • Also, I do agree with Fatal's previous support statement suggesting archiving the pages, though I think in that case you guys could consider condensing them into one big page and protecting that for history reasons.

      For now, though, I'm going to exit this discussion as my main idea has been stated and unless it is contradicted or a mistake spotted, my input is no longer needed.

      ~

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - I support this because it does make more sense on how the wiki should run. But I still think people can still try are apply if they want to if they don't want to wait for the rights to be given to them. The best decision is to go with both the original request pages and Callie's proposal. Mostly because I feel this has a business-like approach to how the wiki can work and increasing its popularity by getting it noticed. It acts as a motivational factor for the wiki and its staff.

        Loading editor
    • I'll change my vote to Support Support - on this.

      Only if someone will aide me on what the name of the forum is, how the forum should run, ect.

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

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.