View source for Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap

{{Archive list
| contents = '''Archive'''<br />[[Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap/Archive 1|July 3 - August 8, 2011]]}}

== 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 ^^ [[File:User Wingless Winged Signature.png|150px|link=User:Wingless]] 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:

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{{pro}} Updates articles which are outdated in "language"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

[[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)

== 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 [[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.

=== 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''' 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.


<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)


=== 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? =====

===== 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.

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