Forum:Is the moderator position needed?

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Is the moderator position needed?

This is a preliminary discussion for a proposal I intend to bring forth for voting soon concerning the elimination of the moderator position. Please feel free to comment on it.

With the restoration of the patroller position, the full moderator became essentially a special name for a chat mod with rollback rights, or, conversely, a patroller with chat mod rights, meaning that the position is essentially redundant. However, the fact that it is still considered a different position altogether has lead to some pretty nasty and unfair inconsistencies. Before delving into the specific cases, I'd like to first remind you of the current requirements for each position:

“The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

• You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
• You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator (see Making the request below).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.

The minimum requirements for becoming a patroller are:

• You've made at least 250 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.

The minimum requirements for becoming a moderator are:

• You have made at least 500 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least two months.
• You have not made a failed moderator rights request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

• You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
• You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.”

First thing, that means that for an ordinary user to become a patroller, he has to have 250 edits and to make a request to a bureaucrat. However, for a chat mod to gain rollback rights, he has to have 500 edits, and go through an election. Not only he has to have double the edits, but he will have to wait for 7 days to have the verdict, while a request made to a bureaucrat will hardly take more than a few hours to be answered.

Conversely, for an ordinary user to be eligible to be a chat mod, he has to have 100 edits, only 50 of which having to be mainspace edits. However, for a patroller to gain chat moderation rights, he has to have 500 edits, and all of them must be mainspace edits.

Both situations are utterly ludicrous, and they would be reason enough to do away with the position, in my opinion. However, it becomes even more absurd when we consider the requirements to become an administrator.

Imagine two users, A and B. Both have 2 months of activity and 250 mainspace edits. However, A is an ordinary user, while B is a chat mod. To be eligible become an admin, A has to put up a request to become a patroller and wait 2 months. B, on the other hand, will have to wait until he gathers 250 more edits, wait 7 days for his moderator election, and then wait 2 more months. NB: B will have to wait for the 250 additional edits and then more 7 days for the moderator election more than A. So, in practice, B was punished for being a chat mod.

There is no valid justification for these inconsistencies. 'Moderator' is not just a redundant position, it is an outright aberration that has to be abolished. A user with both rollback and chat moderation rights will then simply be both a patroller and a chat moderator, displaying both tags as user icons. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 08:51, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: One thing I'd like to clear up is that this proposal is exclusively in regards to the need of the moderator as a distinct position. The need of a change requirements to become administrator, etc, are not pertinent to this discussion. Please try to keep discussion focused on the question at hand. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 09:36, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I disagree. The big thing here is the rather new policy that allows a patroller to jump straight to administrator, meaning that the moderator position is no longer a required prerequisite to becoming an administrator. I understand what you're saying. Anyone with patroller rights and chat moderator rights would simply be known as a patroller with chat mod powers; however, doesn't it make much more sense to give it a simple, smaller name (moderator)? Now, I know we aren't actually moving to abolish the combination of the rights itself, but hear me out on this one. Let's say we have a moderator (let's call him Bob). Bob is a very good chat moderator and a semi-decent editor, but he has no interest in the high-tech fields of editing that are looked for in candidates for the administrator position. Bob is much more interested in being chat/community involved, while still doing his part in editing with his patrol/rollback rights. To me, that is what the moderator position is about. It is designed for users who are well-rounded in both the chat and the editing sector. I move that the position stay for simplicity. On a side note, I don't quite see what is so horrible about having this position. In laments terms, exactly how is it "redundant"? It makes perfect sense when I think about it. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 09:08, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I do support the changing of the edit count requirements, but what I'm pushing for is that the position itself still be called "moderator" or "full moderator", and that it still be the combination of rollback, patrol, and chat moderation. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 09:10, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

The big thing here is the rather new policy that allows a patroller to jump straight to administrator, meaning that the moderator position is no longer a required prerequisite to becoming an administrator.

No, because even if we revert the full-mod as a requirement, the issue would still remain over the fact that a for patroller to gain chat mod rights or vice-versa, would be different for a ordinary user to gain rollback or chat mod rights.

Would simply be known as a patroller with chat mod powers; however, doesn't it make much more sense to give it a simple, smaller name (moderator)?

My proposal isn't about the name, it's about the position itself, so the name of a patroller with chat mods, or a chat mod with rollback rights may still be 'moderator', and my point stays exactly the same.

To me, that is what the moderator position is about. It is designed for users who are well-rounded in both the chat and the editing sector.

But the fact that it's a full fledged position actually hurts said users, because they are punished for going for the chat mod previously.

In laments terms, exactly how is it "redundant"? It makes perfect sense when I think about it.

It is redundant because it adds nothing in itself apart from the inconsistencies I demonstrated above, and adds nothing (apart from the simpler name, which can remain regardless. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 09:27, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Toci has pretty much summarized my thoughts. Mods can still be used to give a full effect if the rules are changed. I agree that moderators aren't "needed", however. Patrollers and chat mods have the power to replace them, if we organised and edited priorities properly. However, I don't think something like that will happen anytime soon, so Moderators must be used until further notice. Also, Chat moderators appear to have a huge responsibility compared to Patrollers, who can only rollback and patrol edited pages. The requirements is rubbish and needs to be changed.--For NCR (talk) 09:22, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, administrator is a pro-editing position. Allowing a chat moderator to jump directly to administrator would be outright (for lack of a better word) stupid. Limmie and I talked about this in chat, and she's convinced me of a few things. The moderator position isn't actually NEEDED. My issue with the position is how a patroller becomes a chat mod, a chat mod becomes a patroller, and how either can become an admin. The real change needed here is in the application policy. The edit counts need to be adjusted to be fair for the two different positions. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 09:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

@NCR: I'd like you to please elaborate exactly how having a moderator position helps your point. If anything, it makes it harder for chat mods to become admins. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 09:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT:
Just get rid of the chat moderator position. It could be so much more simple:
Patroller - Stays the same.
Moderator - 500 edits, two months activity, community vote. Has patroller, rollback and chat moderator rights.
Admin - Stays the same.
Bureaucrat - Stays the same.
You can argue that to be a chat moderator doesn't require editing, but it would prove that they care enough about the Wiki to bother with the requirements and also gets more people editing. 09:29, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

@Yes-Man I have to agree with you 100%. We have no need for chat mods if Moderators can do that instead. It makes it harder for Patrollers and C mods to have the right of adminship.(especially since Chat mods are out of the picture)--For NCR (talk) 09:35, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: Patroller rights are given out at the discretion of our bureaucrats, to users that have proven themselves here. We could, in theory, make patroller rights temporary instead. That way, they're able to gain a little experience, and then they can use that experience in their future requests to upgrade to one of the moderator positions. (Or even Admin.) I also agree that we should just merge mod and chat mod together. The chat mod position is the redundant position, if anything. ^Skål! 09:46, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

How is chat mod redundant? There are users who stick mainly to the chat and aren't so big on editing. Their edit counts, however, have no effect on their abilities as competent chat moderators. As Limmie has written right above you, only one of the active chat mods has over 500 mainspace edits, and she's barely over that line. I think you and I would both agree that they are all excellent at what they do, whether or not they are edit-focused. The editing sector has its own specific position (patroller), and the chat has its own specific position (chat moderator). ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 10:02, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Here's the edit count of the currently active moderators (and Cc):

• ButterflyKiss: 515
• DragonBorn96: 309
• Gothic Neko: 157
• Miss.Nicolle: 55
• Victor the Securitron: 123
• Cc99910: 72

By these rules, only Butterfly Kiss would be apt to moderate the chat. I think that's enough argument against the proposal XD Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 09:56, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

@Limmie Alright. Your amendment to the original argument cleared everything up for me. Let me just recap how you think it should look. A user with 250 edits can become a patroller by asking a 'crat. A patroller could become a chat mod right off the bat, since he/she already has the required edit count. A patroller can also ignore the chat mod position and apply for administrator after having been a patroller for 2 months and having 1000 mainspace edits. On the flip side, a user can become a chat mod once he/she has 100 edits total, 50 being mainspace. A chat mod can become a patroller by reaching the 250 mainspace edits and asking a 'crat. The 2 month count for becoming an admin starts at patroller rights no matter what. I see everything clearly now, and I move that the position of moderator be completely abolished. A user with patrol, rollback, and chat mod powers will simply be referred to as a patroller with chat mod powers. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 09:55, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's all a bit convoluted, isn't it? I still think merging chat moderator and moderator makes so much more sense, and is easier. In reality, administrators can kick and chatban, so it's not like having a position solely for chat moderator position is urgently needed. 10:00, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Administrator is an edit-focused position. You're not in the chat much anymore, so let me clarify this: chat moderators are in there a HELL of a lot more than administrators are. By your logic, none of the current chat moderators should have their position, which would leave it all to administrators. Leaving the chat to administrators is one of the most asinine suggestions that one could come up with. The place would be chaotic. Administrators are advanced editors. You'll notice that we don't let chat mods jump straight to administrator for a reason. They aren't meant to be all over the chat, as they have other responsibilities. The chat moderator position isn't just a luxury. It's a necessity. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 10:09, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

No need to get all fussed. I just don't see the point in keeping Chat Moderator over Moderator. "Patroller with Chat Moderator rights" is just Moderator with a different name, so I don't understand why you're saying we need to abolish it.

Also, I'll remind you that I know full well the responsibilities of the Chat Moderator. I was the first to receive chat moderator rights along with Scar, Billy and Pip when the position was first created, a few days after chat was installed. 10:14, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

YM, does it make sense to you that a chat mod with 250 edits cannot apply for rollback rights, while an ordinary user can? Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:21, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's easier to just roll all the leftover rights (Chat moderator, patroller, rollback) under Moderator, rewrite the requirements, and remove rollback and chat moderator rights. 10:23, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Why should a user who is never in the chat have to apply for both patroller and chat mod (full mod) at the same time, rather than just apply for patroller and move up from there? ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 10:25, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

There actually is nothing saying that a moderator needs to be in chat. If the chat moderator role is removed, then that's gravy - there's no arguments saying "Just run for chat mod". Besides, there are heaps of administrators who don't use chat, but they're still given chat moderator rights when they're promoted. 10:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Why would a user who doesn't care about chat have to request chat moderator rights and go through an election just to be able to patrol pages and rollback? Conversely, there's really no need to only have edit-heavy users to moderate chat, specially since most people who spend most time in chat (and therefore, are more apt to moderate it) don't usually edit much. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:32, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, how can a patroller make an bureaucrat request? It would automatically fail, as he needs to be an admin first. Second, to make a bureaucrat request it needs a vote (takes 2 weeks, by GhostAvatar's latest reuqest). Third,even if my points above are fake, how do you know that the user will be granted bureaucrat powers? He would need a lot of experience to become a one.

As for moderator position, I don't think we should merge it back. Chat mods have their own tools and to merge them back... I don't think they will use them often.

Latest, the chat mod position. To be honest, the moderator position is actually patroller+chat mod tools. So I doubt a person would go to chat mod position, as he loses his tolls, but rather to moderator poistion (unless he does not want to contribute anymore). Energy X ∞ 10:03, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Energy, there is no requirement to become a BC. Any hobo with a 1 minute old account can run for the position if he wants. Not that anybody would vote for him. But regardless, that has nothing to do with the proposal. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:13, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my asking, but where did bureaucrat requests come into this discussion at all? Lol. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 10:15, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Reviewed the history and the requirements for bureaucrats were never written... or maybe I should have gone deeper. In any case, if a patroller makes a request, I doubt he would pass, as a lot of dedication is needed to become a one. Energy X ∞ 10:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Moderator position was split. If a person wanted either rollback and patroller or chat mod or both at the same time, I think they should be committed. I'm fine with the patroller requirements, but chat mod requirements are pathetic. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 10:21, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

As our current only moderator, I've been talking about this a lot. The roles were split IIRC in response to what I've dubbed "The Sigma Delta Situation" - namely people being refused a higher level of rights that they might be able to use, due to non presence in chat, and vice versa.

In the past I think I've suggested that an patroller should be able to run for admin without Cmod powers, but IIRC this doesn't work. If we're still setting the "Admin" requirement as what is currently called a full moderator, then I see no point in making what is a cosmetic change in giving someone two titles instead of one combined one.

What I would prefer instead is to maybe look at giving the Moderator role a purpose. I've said elsewhere at the moment if we have plenty of Cmods and plenty of patrollers, there is no need for a moderator to be appointed. Perhaps instead we need to refocus on what makes the moderator distinct from the other two positions - namely the ability to run for admin. I think we need to keep the position, but add a few more admin level rights to it, in order to basically create an "admin in training".

I'm not entirely sure how this would work as I don't know what can and can't be done with user rights, but maybe the solution isnt abolition, but redefinition. Agent c (talk) 10:22, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

C, a patroller *can* run for admin without chat mod powers. Also, that seems kinda pointless to me TBH, making up a new position altogether, without real need, just so we can fill in the name 'moderator'. :/ Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:27, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the issue at hand is not the ability to apply for admin. The issue is that a regular user can become a patroller at 250 edits, whereas a chat mod can't become a patroller until they have 500 (sound familiar?). We're pushing to change how a patroller can become a chat mod and a chat mod can become a patroller. Administrator has nothing to do with this. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 10:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

well it does and it doesn't in that it is the only unique thing about the full mod position. I would be happy to see the level drop to in line with patroller with an election only to add Cmod; however I think we'd better off looking at the long term viability and use of the position at all; I've been predicting all week the position would die with me, but maybe there is some tool we haven't yet considered that would make the extra effort worthwhile Agent c (talk) 10:48, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

The only one I can think of would be the ability to delete blog comments, but unfortunately that's out of our hands -- comments are for all intents and purposes 'mini pages', and like regular pages only admins can delete them. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 11:34, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Alright, after a long argument in chat, I'm going to sum up my point, and I don't terribly care about debating it with anyone:

• This is a waste of time. The Wiki is in no jeopardy if we don't change the rules.
• There are more important things to be doing than attempting to remove a role.
• Instead of trying to remove something that is broken, just fix it and move along.
• If a chat moderator laments having to do extra work than a patroller, perhaps they're not fit for the role.

This shouldn't become a major issue like the Talk Page rules which are still being argued, have gone through several votes and pages, and only recently made progress. In my honest opinion, we should all just drop this proposition now and move along, because I'm telling you, it's a lot less work in the long run to leave the system as it is rather than go through a community-wide process merely to correct one tiny, measly little contradiction in the requirements - alternatively, just get the bureaucrats to change the rule by themselves; I assure you, the wider community honestly isn't affected by this issue in the slightest. 11:32, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I can see why they would be removed but I think normal moderators are a very big part of the community. Or we could just call them "chatmods with rollback rights". Cheese Lord

I'd rather keep the name but lose the position, if it had to come down to that. Chatmod with patroller rights can just be simplified by saying 'Moderator'. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 18:03, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Another Proposal

• Patroller - 250 legitimate article page edits. Must have either graduated from the NUN program, or have shown their worth by extensively working on at least one of the active projects we have here. Must be approved by at least one bureaucrat. This action may be over-turned if the other two bureaucrats do not approve. This position only lasts for a month, and it gives the user the chance to gain some experience with the extra tools. At the end of this month-long trial, if the user has proven to be able to use their new tools properly, they can instantly jump to applying for a moderator position.
• Chat Moderator - 0-50 legitimate edits. The chat feature is an entirely separate entity from the wiki itself, meaning that edits should have nothing to do with this position. Any chat user can apply for this position, but first must be endorsed by an Administrator, along with a full report on justifying their endorsement. The chat user applying for this position must provide evidence of their actions in chat, showing that they can be helpful, and responsible when dealing with other users. Users who have had two or more chat bans aside from lag or mistake bans will never be able to apply for this position. Kicks do not count.
• Moderator - 500 legitimate article page edits. As a side option, those who are able to become a patroller, and show they can use the tools responsibly, may jump into applying for this position immediately after their patroller term is finished. This is essentially a permanent patroller position.
• Administrator - 1500 legitimate article page edits. As a side option, those who have climbed the ranks, (Patroller, then Moderator.) may jump into applying for this position at 850 legitimate article page edits after another month has passed. Users who are one ban away from a permanent-ban are not allowed to apply for this position.
• Bureaucrat - Must have climbed through each rank (With the possible exceptions of patroller and chat moderator.) first before applying. Must have regularly worked on at least one active project until its completion. Must have participated in the NUN or any other similar programs to bring up at least one user to patroller status. (This is to prove that the user wanting to be a bureaucrat can handle the new responsibilities, and is able to work with newer and inexperienced users. If a user does not harness these traits, then they have no right to become a bureaucrat here.) Users one ban away from a permanent-ban may not apply for this position.

^Skål! 20:13, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I like some of the stuff here, but I don't really see the value in the "Short" paths... People who have gone through those paths I'd expect to see somewhere at the level of "Long" paths anyway.

I like the idea of maybe declaring patroller the official "Graduation" point of the NUN rather than the unofficial one it is at the moment; given the limited ability for mischief with the patroller rights, I don't see much point in it being a temp/perm position.

Separating out chatmod rights, I think is fair enough. However some of the things there you're asking people to demonstrate I think are difficult. I think the current system of an Admin endorsement (perhaps expanded to another Cmod's endorsement) in addition to the vote covers this - on the proviso that the endorsement comes from someone on at that time.

With having people brought up to Patroller standard in the NUN... It sounds good in theory because it shows that people have hopefully developed some personal coaching skills, and demonstrates their inter-person communication skills - I've always viewed the NUN as a two way program - those who need wiki skills learn those, and maybe the mentor learns something in return; however there is a flaw in that due to the nature of us being a wiki the NUN has an extremely high mentee turnover rate (people come once or twice eager to get stuff done, and then naturally fall away) so I don't know if we would be in the position to put that as a strict requirement... Maybe a more broad criterion that participating in the NUN to this level would hit, as would other options. Agent c (talk) 20:43, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if a user has proven themselves by climbing the ranks, then I see no problem with giving them a little bit of a break as a reward. Those instantly wanting to jump into a position should have to work harder for it. As for my ideas for chat moderator requests being tough, don't you think they'd have to be? A lot of people who are chat regulars these days are quite frankly, quite young. We have to be very careful not to give the wrong person those extra powers, or else we'll have incidents like the whole chat room being banned. Right now, I just think it's much too easy to become a chat moderator. We've been lucky so far with those we've chosen, but I'd rather not take any chances for the future. I think a user should show responsibility by showing evidence of their worth. As for the NUN, I mentioned above that it didn't have to be specifically the NUN. As long as a user can take an apprentice under wing, and teach them enough for the apprentice to become a patroller, then that would be good enough for me. ^Skål! 20:52, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think becoming a Chatmod is tough - thanks to the Admin endorsement. These aren't handed out that often, I know of one would be Chatmod who without commenting on the merits of that person, simply can't get one. Having to provide "proof" of behaviour (by that Im guessing logs / screenshots) seems redundant in the face of the Endorsement. We don't seem to have a run of unsuitable candidates since this came in. Agent c (talk) 21:25, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I do remember bringing this up a few months ago and having it shot down by some of the people here as being to "brash". I'll dig it up after dinner and see what it was I said. See if it still makes sense.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:54, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Redundant SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 02:43, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with clyde on this one.