Forum:Endorsements referendum

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Endorsements referendum

In light of the recent discussion regarding the admin endorsement requirement for chat moderator applications (as outlined in FW:ADMIN), the community has decided to bring several key points to a vote. Please familiarise yourself with the issues surrounding these points.

Question 1

Do you support complete removal of the admin endorsement requirement as it is for chat moderator applicants?

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

03:00, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. Now it's quiet, but the moment FO4 gets announced, we'll get flooded again and with that a new flood of people who wanna get extra powers. Better to have a deterent as a filter - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:21, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)The endorsement requirement keeps the rabble out.
3. Endorsements of some sort need to be in place. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. There are unnecessary rules, and there are rules that help make our wiki a smoother experience for everyone. I am sure one can guess at which I believe this particular rule to be. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. Even if I haven't endorsed a single person, it would be beneficial to have this rule. We can see it like a recommendation, to see some trust in the nominated user. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
6. Endorsement to ensure staff support, community vote to ensure community support. Works as is; doesn't need to be changed. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. There needs to be a filter. The prerequisites for applying ensure that someone has completed the editing/presence requirements, and the endorsement judges something that rules and number requirements can't: Character. The potential endorser must disregard the numbers and truly think about whether the chat would benefit from giving the prospective chat moderator his/her own star. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:31, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. For any applicant that stands a chance, an endorsement is not a difficult thing to obtain. --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. It's a good smell-test, and I like good smell-tests. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 14:58, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
10. I agree with Skire's vote above, it's easy to get. It also helps weed out the would-be applicants that nobody really sees in chat. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. It kind of balances things out, doesn't it? Especially for the future. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:01, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
12. It should be obvious why this is a bad idea. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
13. Shows that some people on the wiki shows said user responsible enough. Great Mara (talk) 03:44, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
14. File:LegionEmblem.png 12:14, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."

Question 2

Do you support expansion of the endorsement right to include all moderators and chat moderators? This means that moderators, chat moderators, along with admins, will be able to endorse chat moderator applicants.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. What do you need, boss? (talk) Cmods have more domain in the Chat, and would be more effective in choosing new chat mods.
2. With a whopping 8 admins on the wiki, I see only one in chat on a daily basis, I see three more in chat somewhat often, and the rest rarely or infrequently in chat. Having one admin there regularly that can be asked for an endorsement puts a load on that admin and also creates limitations on who can get rights based on who that admin has interacted with. I would submit that given that chat mods and admins are supposed to be equals in chat, then it makes sense that they could endorse, especially considering how many of them are chat active. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. I place my trust in the Chat Moderators knowing enough about their own domains to make informed decisions of this nature. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. Chat mods are more often in the chat, I think. They should know better. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. I would rather have someone who frequents chat to be able to endorse potential chat mods rather than admins being the only source of endorsements. Seems counter-intuitive to ask for support to moderate chat from someone who may not even use the feature. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. I was originally going to say "no, then someone who just got voted in could start endorsing all of his/her friends," but then I realized that: 1.)That's just being paranoid, which is something that has plagued this wiki's policies for too long; 2.)Someone who got an endorsement from his buddy and really shouldn't be a chat mod would never pass the community vote. I like this change. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:36, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. They are often more in touch with applicants than some admins are (e.g. myself!) --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. If a freshly made C-mod endorses his buddies, the community would just take that into account anyway when casting their votes. So I see nothing wrong with this. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:00, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. I'm in chat more than all but one administrator right now, and I believe I possess the ability to gauge whether a prospective chat moderator has what it takes or not. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
10. I think I can trust our current chat moderators/moderators to handle this kind of power. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. File:LegionEmblem.png 12:16, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."
2. 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Question 3

Please select the option below you support the most regarding bureaucrats giving endorsements.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
  • # {{yes}} ~~~~
  • # {{no}} ~~~~
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Option 1

Bureaucrats may not endorse chat moderator applications.

1. Bureaucrats should remain neutral in decision of giving the user rights, including endorsement. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would rather see this expanded to all forms of requests, since the bureaucrats decide the outcome and enabling them to exclude themselves would limit the concensus, but this is a step in the right direction at least. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
3. They may, however, express any opinions they see fit in the comments section of a request. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:49, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. To ensure neutrality (or a façade thereof). --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
5. At first I didn't see, "Why not?", but then I realized it would probably be for the best if the Bureaucrats just stick to the ultimate decision should their discretion be warranted. It would ensure integrity of the procedure more than anything. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:01, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. They already decide the outcome of all applications as it is to my knowledge, so why they should be granted further power? 02:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
7. Bureaucrats have a presumed swaying power over others' opinions, which is why long since the Vault times they self-imposed a ban on voting on requests. Time to set the unwritten convention on stone.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

Option 2

Bureaucrats may endorse, but they must be excluded from the final decision-making process.

1. In my opinion, an endorsement is a yes vote. And the way I sees it, by endorsing a candidate, a bureaucrat has made their position known. People are raising their concerns about B-crats compromising their neutrality by endorsing, to which I say why not have them sit out of the deliberations for making the decision? In this case their neutrality or lack thereof becomes a non-issue. I myself cannot see why so many who are afraid of b-crats losing their neutrality go to the extreme of saying they cannot endorse when, simply keeping them out of the deliberation process would solve that problem. The only real argument I see in favor of B-crats not endorsing, given this, is that keeping them out removes one more person from the deliberation process and limit consensus, and even then that still leaves three to deliberate, eliminating the possibility of a stalemate. In the end I find this option to be a nice middle ground that addresses the concerns of both groups.*EDIT* Also, two of the B-crats are way more active in chat than most of our admins. I fall admins can endorse, even those not active in chat, why would we not allow two chat active b-crats to endorse given that they have a better grasp on the users there and their behaviors? Richie9999 (talk) 02:52, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would hate to ruin a perfectly good empty space (I wrote this right before Richie voted... but I'm keeping it.), but I think if a BC decides they want to make an endorsement, we already know their point of view, and there are 3 other perfectly capable BCs that can talk it over. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Option 3

Bureaucrats may endorse without restrictions or conditions.

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)
3. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 00:57, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:06, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
5. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I would propose a perhaps simpler solution. For the entire chat rules and endorsements, any reference to "Administrator", "(Chat) Moderator" or "Bureaucrat" should be read as anyone with the Chat Moderation toolset. Agent c (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be simpler. Although, just to be a smart-ass, I seem to recall a while back, J went through and removed Chat Moderator status from most everyone that had a position higher than Chat Moderator. ;D ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:36, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

They still have the toolset though as its inclusive, so that would be what counts. Agent c (talk) 23:38, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know. Like I said: just being a smart-ass. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot vote on number three. I support Bureaucrats being able to endorse and vote on the request, just as every other rights group, but only under the condition that they must provide a valid rationale alongside their endorsement (just as any other endorser should be doing). Since that is technically a condition, I fear that does not fit into any proposed voting categories. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Before this subject comes up, if it does, I want to leave this here to clarify a few things that I've seen said. As you can see by my user rights interface, Bureaucrats are also admins by default. I checked a few other wiki's I'm a founder on to make sure this is not an artifact of me being an admin before a BC, but the sysop rights (admin) are granted alongside bureaucrat rights. FW:ADMIN states: "Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers." Please note the inference there. Bureaucrats are administrators, just "irregular" ones. You may, or may not, if you wish, take this into consideration while deliberating the above question. Screenie on the right for kicks. As you were.  The Gunny   23:57, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I understand that from a technical perspective especially that bureaucrats are admins by default. However, that does not change anything pertaining to the vote as bureaucrats are nonetheless a separate position (requiring a separate request) from the admin position. --Skire (talk) 02:41, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

In which case, all current bureaucreats are still administrators. I don't recall any of us resigning. They are administrators by the bureaucrat definition, and by election. Agent c (talk) 23:34, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Question 3 is referring to bureaucrats specifically. --Skire (talk) 00:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)