Team Fortress Wiki talk:Wiki Cap/Nominations

Completed nominee reviews

What do you think about new style of table?

User	Staff Discussion Date(s)	Verdict
K-Mac	August 7, 2011	Yes
Armisael	August 7, 2011	Yes
Szumin	August 7, 2011	Yes
Nero123	August 7, 2011	Yes
Cappy	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Nik9990	August 7, 2011	Yes
Lexar	August 7, 2011	Yes
MrPaulolefou	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Meadows	August 7, 2011	Yes
Lhavelund	August 7, 2011	Yes
Stevoisiak	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Balladofwindfishes	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Swarfega	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Cructo	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
Stewsta	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	No  Not discussed
VeKoB	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  Yes
CsS	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  No
BiBi	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  Yes
Cooper Kid	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  No
SilverHammer	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  Yes
Nightbox	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  No
Loginov	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  No
Thebigone	August 7, 2011 August 14, 2011	Not discussed  No

— Cappy ^talk 00:09, 19 August 2011 (PDT)

This is the "Completed nominee reviews" table - everybody in that table has been discussed. Logs for the discussion are available on a per-user basis if editor's want to know why they weren't awarded the cap. -RJ 03:10, 19 August 2011 (PDT)

Me gusta. Simple as that. real_alien (T/C) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (PDT)

I don't see how this actually improves over the current table. All of the users here have already been discussed, and the dates are there to let the users look up their logs once they get their password. If you want to re-nominate a user, note at the bottom how it says not to immediately re-nominate them after they have been declined. The staff will look over these users again later on. -- LordKelvin 10:38, 19 August 2011 (PDT)

IMO, we should have atable pretty much like this, BUT without the "Not discussed" days. Users with consecutive "No"'s should show several knows, but users not discussed on several weeks shouldn't have many "Not discussed"'s. The originally proposed table would unecessarily fill up easily.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

Table Disambiguation: Active Nominations, Recent Reviews, Archive of Approved Reviews, Archive of Nominations

If the rate of nominees continues at its current pace, then in a few months we will have a rather full table of completed reviews. In anticipation of that scenario, I suggest setting up tables with these four titles, moving entries into autocollapsed archives after a sensible amount of time spent in the 'Recent Reviews' table.

Whether you approve or disapprove of this idea, please also state what you believe would be the best length of time to wait before archiving a review. I've already decided what my vote would be... Mainman ^{(Talk ▪ Contribs.)} 10:08, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

 Support Sure, why not. And 2 months sounds reasonable to me — Wind 15:57, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

 Support That's great.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 07:42, 28 August 2011 (PDT)

Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead and implemented the changes on the page. Mainman ^{(Talk ▪ Contribs.)} 09:31, 12 September 2011 (PDT)

Archive of Nominations

Wouldn't it be better if it would be listed from new to old? I need to scroll down a long time till i see my nomination, and in the future i guess the list will be even longer. Why not put the latest nominations at top and the older in the bottom, would be more logical, right? TheDoctor(without a small pic) 18:49, 13 November 2011 (PST)

Suggesting an addition to New Noms./Re-Noms. tables

I think we should put a link to the users contribs onto the nominee table, something like this:

Nominee	Backers	Date Nominated	Prior Nomination Dates	Reasons	Staff Notes
ExampleUser (contribs)	ExampleSupporter	2011-11-25	2011-09-27	● Example support message.	N/A

Whaddya think? It's an easy addition, just go through the current New Nominations and Re-Nominations tables, find the nominee's userpage link, punch in a space and paste in ([[Special:Contributions/UsernameGoesHere|contribs]]). 404: User Not Found ^(talk) 12:56, 29 November 2011 (PST)

 Agree Actually looks fine to me, people could easily check someones contributions and by chance decide to support the guy they check up, evading going thru their respective profile page. Good idea imo.  · T-Wayne · Talk 13:11, 29 November 2011 (PST)

 Agree Not a bad idea. Also it would only take a few seconds to implement. 13:07, 29 November 2011 (PST)

 Comment Indeed it would. I was actually thinking of implementing it a few seconds ago while adding my support for Stevosiak. But I'd rather get community opinion on it first. You might also want to head over to the Discussion board and check out my proposal for an addition to the Class bio template. 404: User Not Found ^(talk) 13:14, 29 November 2011 (PST)

 Pootis because why not. I was about to say that it needs to be smaller so that it fits on one line but then I realized the reasons column usually makes it a ton of lines long so it doesn't matter — Wind 13:24, 29 November 2011 (PST)

I feel like I'm being passed by

Okay, I would like to start by saying that I do not wish to offend Warlike in any way and he deserves a Wiki Cap, but I'm rather peeved. I have been working on the Dutch side of the TF Wiki for nearly 1.5 year by now (I started in October 2010), I have contributed heavily and I have yet to receive the wikichievement for translating, let alone the Wiki Cap. Now I come here and see that Warlike has been nominated. Again, he deserves it, but I feel like I'm being ignored here. In fact, despite being the only translator for a good year, I was getting flak for supposedly having edits that 'were not up to standard', while I was the bloody standard. Yes, I am aware that in the past month I haven't done a lot of work, that's how a study is for ya, but that does not take away that I have sunk a lot of time and work into the Wiki, yet I'm not seeing any kind of recognition here, not even in the form of a simple wikichievement.
I know, I know. The Wiki Cap is a privilege, not a right and I have been working silently all this time, not ever asking for anything for that reason. And for a similar reason, I should not be frustrated, nor disappointed for not being granted such privilege. But that doesn't take away that it looks like people just keep ignoring my work over and over and over again.
Again, I do not wish to insult anyone, particularly not Warlike, whom I still believe deserves a Wiki Cap, but I just had to get this out there. -- Hefaistus - talk 14:26, 22 January 2012 (PST)

I couldn't agree more to be honest. This is ofcourse based on just interacting with Hefaistus for just a few times and going through his edits, but I do feel there is some form of applause missing. Of course I cannot really say much more about this as I am in no position to do so, perhaps other people have thought different about you or maybe people simply had other issues. This is highly unofrtunate though, and I do understand your sentiments. Thank you for expressing your faith in me as a editor though, that means a lot coming from someone who has edited the Dutch wiki before I cam along. Also remember I am only nominated for this hat, I do not have it yet. I think interacting with the wiki community is very important in order to get recognized easier by other people, as they will be the ones making the first step (nominating you).

Perhaps a moderator or a senior user could eloborate on why this has not happened yet or if there are particular reasons. Warlike 14:34, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Then how about nominating Hefaistus, Warlike? :3 — Wind 15:46, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Don't feel sad, mad or bad about not getting a Wiki Cap. If you think you deserve it, you don't get it. If you don't need/want it, but worked for it, you maybe get it. I was nominated twice(first was terrible), and still i don't got it. But the guys who got it are the people chosen by the people, which are also checked by the moderators which then decide if a person puts enough into it to deserve it. I won't say that you don't deserve it, but some languages are a wasteland and you must accept that some persons don't read or look at these edits, and maybe that's why you were not chosen. Give it time and people will see what you did. Also your text is a good reminder, maybe some people will look more into what you did and maybe you get a cap without being nominated for extra-hard-work. TheDoctor 14:38, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks, these replies do me good. It is just that for the longest time already, I feel like I'm being ignored around here, ya know? This is also in part of the aforementioned wikichievement. While I know and accept the fact that it is quite likely I will never get the Wiki Cap - which is fine anyway, like I said, it's a privilege, not a right - it just saddens me to know that my work goes even too unnoticed for that simple wikichievement. I may have overreacted a little, I may have hasted my previous message and if I did, I apologize. But I just had to get this off my chest. I will continue working, I will continue editting, and I will continue warring with Warlike for who gets the first edit. Thanks for reading and replying.

That reminds me, I need to add my support to Warlike's Nomation. -- Hefaistus - talk 15:27, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Some history: You were previous nominated and all were actually in favor of giving you a Wiki Cap based on your English contributions and how Dutch contributions approximately looked (no staff member could read Dutch). So we had to check, and this was done with Luurtt from the Dutch Steam Translation Service who (to everyone's surprise) found the translations to use poor spelling and unrelated words.

In retrospect we should probably have checked with other people as well, from the Steam Translation Service or with other Dutch wiki editors now that there are some (hai Warlike), in case Luurtt was wrong in the first place, or in case things have improved since then. I just re-checked with Warlike though and he seemed to agree with what Luurtt said, but said that things have improved since then.

As for addressing the "feeling overlooked", I highly recommend the IRC channel. You've been in there twice before, but try to stick in there for longer, rather than just coming when you need to ask something and then leaving. No need to talk if you don't want to, just being there helps as it means you're available, and that's something good by itself~ — Wind 15:46, 22 January 2012 (PST)

I was nominated? I thought that the policy was to let nominees know that they had been nominated and that they could review the logs so that they knew how they could improve? Because, if I'm going to be terribly honest, LordKelvin's comment on my talk page came out of nowhere and I put absolutely no link between his message and a potential nomination.

It is funny that you mention the STS, because I joined the STS some time after LordKelvin left that message on my talk page, which is also why there has been improvements in my translations.

I have actually been in the IRC more often than twice, although rarely for long. I tend to be ten different kinds of busy (especially now, with my study) and when I am gone for a bit and I tab back to see my screen filled with only edit reports from the Wiki, I tend to not really see much added value for me during that time. I always figure that if people really need me, they can post on my talk page.

I do apologize heavily for my outburst though, especially since I have this new information. Had I known that I was nominated before, I would've remained silent. Thanks for the reply, Wind. -- Hefaistus - talk 07:52, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Yes, you were nominated once before, prior to having this public nominations list, which is probably why you didn't know. Maybe we should have let you know... Well, that's done now~ And you're nominated again, which I'm sure you noticed.

Also please don't hesitate to voice your concerns; you sound very withdrawn, as if what you're doing is wrong (it's not). It is entirely fine to express your opinion on how things are handled, and in your situation I'd probably have done so as well :3 — Wind 13:17, 23 January 2012 (PST)

(P.S. the message LordKelvin left you was a consequence of us checking your translations with Luurtt as a result of your nomination. Maybe that should have been explicitly mentioned in his message) — Wind 13:18, 23 January 2012 (PST)

I knew I was nominated for a while, all the way back when the list was still produced by WindBOT, but I thought nominations had pretty much come to a halt in that time period between WindBOT producing the list and this new nomination system. And yes, I did notice I have been nominated again, which I am quite grateful for.

I tend to be quite careful with my responses, which is why I rarely speak up. Back when discussions were going for a new Wiki Cap system, I made a post about translators versus English editors. It took me 2 to 3 hours to write that thing, just to make sure everything I said was clear and correct. Most of the time, I type out a reply for a discussion and end up wiping it completely, because I believe it's not up to par. That is why I am also so very apologetic about my previous post. It does not have the same care I usually invest into posts.

But up till now, everyone has been very understanding and supportive, which I am glad with. And who knows? Maybe next giveaway, we have an all out Dutch party =P -- Hefaistus - talk 15:36, 23 January 2012 (PST)

How long does it take?

Hmm.. in the case of Warlike and Hefaistus, they've been nominated about 4 month ago but, they haven't been reviewed yet and same here.

Just wondering, review date is something irregular?

--Yjy950105 18:24, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

There were some issues in getting a Dutch STS mod to judge our work, hence the massive delay on the decision for Warlike and I. I have no idea what the hold up is for the other nominees, though. -- Hefaistus - talk 09:47, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

How to nominate...(v1)

We dont need to adjust this: Nominee, Backers, Date Nominated . It works well and can't be simplified with a template or other code to be more efficient. What maybe should be added in the description that the way they should "layer" there "backer"-nomination for a person. I think maybe this gives a good example and is already done that way in some nominations:
[Link(Article)]: Text about the link, and what made you pick it, tell us people what is well done special or interesting in it. [Link(Upload]: (...) others . I just wanted to point that here silently out, because i also didnt do that and think this would be better to note, that way. A link itself to articles doesnt help much if you a.) don't speak the language and b.) doesnt understand the significant difference in the code itself and c.) what is alternatively done to make it work. δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 17:31, 5 November 2012 (PST)

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand what you're trying to say :( — Wind 18:40, 5 November 2012 (PST)

Example>> Jiggle bones/de (normal article): Updated this ; [1] [2] [3]: Added missing strings into high level templates. ; Cleanup edit. ; ALL new articles by him are 99,99% perfectly done, and yes i really mean that no an/a error like in the english articles or other flaws. Really really exceptional quality of the grammar use and a clear sentence structur. << Like this. First the link and after that a short text why the contribution from the person was important and/or good and/or bad. At the end other reasons in general which cant be shown in one or two links. δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 00:31, 6 November 2012 (PST)

People should provide direct evidence and explain what these links mean. Trying to find corollaries in english (for translators) is very useful. Darkid (|) 05:39, 6 November 2012 (PST)

Veto for Flying Furry

Leaving a note here since I don't want to gum up the edit summary.

I've decided to veto Flying Furry's nomination because we only last reviewed him back in November. To be perfectly honest, he hasn't added very much more on top of his contributions since then, so it's unlikely that the result of a nomination discussion would change very much. This veto isn't due to any problems with the contributions themselves, it's rather because it's being done too soon after his last one. Please try to nominate him again at a later date when there's more to look at. -- LordKelvin 11:28, 5 January 2013 (PST)

I can agree that it was abit too soon. Sorry for bringing up this so soon after the last review. TNS 12:05, 5 January 2013 (PST)

The new Nominee Vote Queue

I assume one of the characteristics of this setup was anonymity, however viewing the history for the page allows one to see, for each admin, which number they incremented. One solution would be fore the admins to put in their votes with an alternate account, or to simply ignore the issue. Darkid (|) 05:51, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

I thought this was that new way that was discussed last year (ish). So in the case of all the mods not able to get together at one time, this system is used to throw it votes. Also, If this setup was for anonymity, Then they would have restricted us from giving out Wiki Cap discussion logs of said person. (Which they don't). Ashes 05:54, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

Good point, set up this shared staff account for this purpose — Wind 14:46, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

Votes

It would be nice to get some of these in, considering how I, Gonard and Darkid have been nominated for almost 3 months now.

Zabidenu

(contribs ▪ talk) 04:54, 20 October 2013 (PDT)

Please?

Zabidenu

(contribs ▪ talk) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (PDT)

Voting Hiatus

So four people have been up nominated for a few months now, and they haven't been voted on since. Is there some trouble going on? --Dr. Scaphandre (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (PDT)

I agree; the voting process seem to have been stagnating for quite so time now, and there are eight nominees of which only half have gotten votes. Jew (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2015 (PST)

Emergency meeting 1.0

So it was recently brought to staff attention that a user hit 1 year in the nomination queue, so we held an impromptu meeting to try and resolve the bottleneck. The basic gist of what we got was this:

1. Don't change the nomination rules. 5 for is good enough for the time being, and it's preferable to find other means of enforcement.
2. In the same vein, bug people more often. If someone's sitting in queue for a month or so, and they have a good number of backers, they should get votes.
3. Possibly go over the list of staff members and mark a few 'inactive' or 'on break'. This will help to determine how big of a quorum we need, i.e. 5 out of 10 is enough but 5 out of 16 is not.
4. Possibly add a caveat to the rules so that if someone raises an objection for a nominee, it's dealt with.
5. Set a deadline as to when we revisit these rules, i.e. if nothing changes. My suggest is 'if anyone has been in queue for more than 6 months after this month'.

Staff members who were present: User:Lagg, User:WindPower, User:Darkid, User:LordKelvin
Staff members who were not present: User:i-ghost, User:Moussekateer, User:Pilk, User:RJackson, User:seb26, User:Fuffeh, User:Muriloricci, User:Org, User:Piemanmoo, User:SackZement, User:Zabidenu, User:~www~
Let the discussion begin! Mostly, the real question is what to do with points 3 and 4. Darkid « Talk — Contribs » 22:14, 17 May 2016 (PDT)

---

My 2¢: We should change the rules so that if there's any votes against, a discussion (with the person who has the concern) is required. I'd also like to remove the staff members who haven't made more than 10 edits in 2 years. Darkid « Talk — Contribs » 22:14, 17 May 2016 (PDT)

+1 to all the above. Let the "if anyone has been in queue for more than 6 months after this month" start mid-june. We also discussed threshold changes to limit it by time but we figured it's better to leave the rules as-is for a short time to see if it's just a matter of poking the right people. If, in a month, we find out that it's not (by way of said metric), then we should change said thresholds. — Wind 22:30, 17 May 2016 (PDT)

Basically +1 as well, deadlines and objection rules sound good but: In the unlikely event that a staff member does not edit anything at all, but we know is active (in irc or emails) he should stay marked active. How do we deal with situations where multiple people vote against? Discuss with everyone who has a concern? Discuss with at least one who has a concern? Unlikely case that won't happen anyway? SackZement <Talk> 02:03, 18 May 2016 (PDT)

I don't know anybody who's active on IRC and hasn't hit 10 edits in the past 2 years. Regardless, we'd do this on a case-by-case basis anyways. If two people vote against, then there's probably a pretty serious issue going on, and I'd expect a lot of people to be voting against. Darkid « Talk — Contribs » 19:33, 18 May 2016 (PDT)

I agree with all the points raised here too. I would not be opposed to removing inactive staff members or asking them to step down, and that includes myself, as I believe keeping a wiki actively maintained requires active staff. —Moussekateer·talk 14:50, 28 May 2016 (PDT)

I don't know if I was ever considered part of the 'staff' in the normal sense. User:WindPower (I think, this is waaaaay long ago) gave me moderator permissions because of the amount of technical junk I was working with for templates, it was easier for me to have move and delete permissions instead of bugging someone over and over to push things from my sandboxes to the wiki proper. (In fact I wasn't even on the moderator list until, a few years later, someone compared Help:Group_rights to one of the system pages and copied my name over). Org (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2016 (PDT)