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:

• 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 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:

• 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

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. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:33, 10 November 2012 (EST)

Responses

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 [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. Leem01 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. ~SuperHamster 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. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:37, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Proposed adjustments

Proposing a few changes to our application process/policy:

• 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.

Feedback appreciated. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:05, July 23, 2021 (EDT)

I  Support 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)

 Support 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) 11:26, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

 Support proposal B in its entirety. I hear what you're saying about 2 months being too long, PanchamBro, 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 Drago 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. (talk) 18:46, July 24, 2021 (EDT)