Wikia

Nukapedia

Moderator Request - ToCxHawK Parte Dos

17,535pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Moderator Request - ToCxHawK Parte Dos
Icon nowrite
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


Yo, my fellow people I, HawK da Barber, am here in once again ask to be a full Moderator for the second time.

You were a Mod once and gave up your rights. Why do you want them back?

I gave up my rights for the sole fact was a majority of people said I lacked in doing my job, even if I passed my Reconfirmation request to remove them. I admitted, I was a lousy Mod, I probably didn't do the right things at times, and I regret it at times. As of now, I want to be given a second chance at being a Moderator giving I think I can actually do it this time around compared to the last time. First time around, I wasn't taking my role in this wiki seriously so I would let people get away with things no other mod would a few times, and I know this time around will be much different.

I know a lot of people question my maturity at times, if not always, and feel that I am in no way able to do this job. I know I am not the most serious at times, but people know I can be serious when I need to be to settle a dispute. Even without my powers, I do my best to diffuse conflicts that get out of hand, if I am there and able to. I want to prove to the community that I can do this job, and all I need is the chance to do so.

There are already mods in your time slot, why do you need your rights back?

I've taken into account that most the time, Vic, Toci, and Cc are one while I am. There are times when one isn't on, and the others are away or something along those lines, and I feel I can go into this time frame and make sure someone is always there to maintain the peace in this chat. I don't think there is a such thing as too many mods or anything along those lines as you never know when there will be a time that there might not be any on. I rather have more mods than less just to be safe.

My Contributions

  • I am so far the only fully active member on the Van Buren article project redux. I continuously keep making edits on Van Buren pages trying to get them up to par with the rest of the wiki. It's still going to take a while as I don't get as much edits in like I used to, but I will continue to edit until its completed. So far I have managed to clean up a majority of the quest pages and design documents making sure all the links are correct and adding the correct info to the quest pages. As of right now, I am referencing the quests, making sure people can find the source of the info.
  • I was once a continuously a member in the Bug Verification project, but it has since been put on hold for Van Buren, though I will get back into it here pretty soon.
  • And lastly here is my edit count which is just over 2,400 edits, it has been growing slowly for a while, but I plan on finishing a lot of work this week if I have the time. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 12:15, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
Type of edits Edit count
Total 3,567
Article 2,750
Talk 4
User 135
User talk 255
Fallout Wiki 33
Fallout Wiki talk 2
File 2
File talk 0
Template 5
Template talk 0
Category 0
Category talk 0
User blog 13
User blog comment 99
Blog 0
Blog talk 0

Vote

Poll finished on 12:15 pm August 26, 2012.
Poll
  • 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 people's votes.

Yes

  • yesIcon check Higgey the Scotsman (talk page) 13:57, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check So Eric likes to relax sometimes. Sue him. There's no rule that says chat moderators need to be such uptight machines. Eric might seem like he doesn't care, but he is serious when the situation calls for it. If you'll remember, we all voted for him to have these rights not once, but twice. I think people are being a little too tough on him and calling him immature. If any of you will notice, he has been completely calm, serious, and understanding to all the criticism throughout this request. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 03:30, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check Eric, ever since I've been active, I've seen you in the chat. I've seen you doing edits, you are laid back, chill, and when a situation rises up, you drop the jokes and get serious. Others may disagree with me, but that is opinion. It is a fact you could hold this position. User:Dead Gunner (talk)
  • yesIcon check Sure, in the past Eric has not been the most serious at times. But the past is something to move forward from. Presently, Eric is in chat a shitload, and I personally have been with him many times when there has been no moderators/admins/chatmods on, and we have had disruptive users. Even though he didn't have the rights too, he still stepped in and warned against their behavior. Now most good people said, hey ok, yea I'll stop and be good now. There were those that didn't. And those are the ones that these rights Eric is requesting would have been greatly needed. Now I know you all may be thinking, Hey he's friends with Eric, he's just trying to get his friend his rights. That is not the case. I say yes because Eric deserves these rights. If he didn't, I'd be a friend, and say he didn't. Now to quote Toci above, There's no rule that says chat moderators need to be such uptight machines. Just that! <--- We need more of that. All I can really say, sure you need to be serious when the time calls, but in the end, we are all here to have fun and enjoy each others company. In conclusion all I can really say is Eric was a damn good chat mod, and he'll make a damn good one again.--3 of Clubs "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 14:48, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I've seen you around chat enough to know how good of a job you do with keeping an easy-going atmosphere in chat, along with keeping other chat-goers in line. Yes, you tend to be more lax on troublesome users than some, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think we forget a lot of times that it's our job to try and not to ban anyone here. Just promise me one thing, and my vote will remain a yes: Work on your self-esteem when considering positions like these. You've had experience with this sort of responsibility before. If you don't feel like you could do a good job at being a chat moderator, then don't run. Plain and simple as that. You do a good job around here though, and I have a lot of faith in your abilities. So take this request in stride, and I look forward to seeing you grow even more during your time here. Dragon Leon Skål!
  • yesIcon check If you become mod again don't screw it up.PerfectConduit (talk) 04:12, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I'm not convinced by the "Too many mods" argument, it doesnt make any sense at all. I think you might have grown enough to do the job, but I'm still not entirely convinced this poll was raised because you want it. Agent c (talk) 16:27, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check See comments below  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 18:02, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check You have my vote!--For NCR (talk) 18:44, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check I've known Hawk pretty much since he started here. He definitely has what it takes. BILLYOCEAN Wanna talk? 03:57, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • yesIcon check HawK never screwed up mod in the first place. Everyone else just made him think he wasn't good enough because he was more laid back. That's not a bad thing. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 04:27, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

No

  • noIcon cross Nothing personal. You just need to prove what you wish to do here.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 02:36, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

  • noIcon cross RamboRob196 (talk) 12:16, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I like you as a person and and editor, Hawk, but I don't think you're mod material any more. You just aren't serious enough. I can't allow myself to vote yes to someone who says "shat da fak up tankboi" to me practically hourly. VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 12:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross See my comment. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 14:12, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • noIcon cross I feel like a dick for voting no, but I think you didn't take your job seriously enough. Cheese Lord
  • noIcon cross You have improved significantly over the past months and you take criticism extremely well. However, there is no present need for yet another chat moderator. I do believe there is such thing as having too many chat mods and that is a belief no one can change. --Skire (talk) 16:32, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

* noIcon cross You've definitely improved a lot since the time, and that would make me vote neutral. However, what tips the balance is that I just don't see the need for additional mods at this time. Regardless of what some people may think, the rules DO state that special rights are appointed on a per-need basis. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪

  • noIcon cross I'm not round in chat much the same time as you, so i ain't that easy for me to say if you got what it takes or not. But ya had a chance once and let it go, and not many folks seem convinced ya changed so much to deserve another. That's something to keep sight ya know, even if you pass, it will be by a hair. Not much credibility on a fella with such a lukewarm reception. At the end of the day, it seems that giving ya the spot will make it harder for another fella to get it as well, and I don't reckon it's fair to give it to ya when all's in account. There's still a long way to go before ya convince the folks here of the change, so don't be afraid to walk it to the end! CharlesLeCheck Icon check 22:31, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

  • neutralIcon neutral Eric, you're my good friend. I know you're capable of being a mod, sometimes I just don't think I see the qualities in you though. Hence, I vote neutral.--Bunny2Bubble 06:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • neutralIcon neutral I honestly don't know what to say. You have been contributing to this wiki quite a lot, but you just don't seem "serious" enough about this. Radiation trianglePrepare for the Future!Radiation triangle

* neutralIcon neutral See Below. Agent c (talk) 02:40, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

  • neutralIcon neutral I can say that you should make much more edits than you have. If there would be a 3rd vote and you make more edits, then I'd put yes. For now, I'm not sure. Energy X 12:42, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • neutralIcon neutral After visiting the chat at an odd hour today, I realized there were no mods around, and it stayed that way for a good while. It seems we do need more mods after all, and as such I'm withdrawing my opposition. Good luck Hawk. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪

Comments

I believe you're only fit for patroller. Your edits and contributions to main space mean something in that respect. I just don't think your behavior in chat qualifies you to have chat moderator rights in addition to patroller. I've seen you break rules, namely when taunting more or another chat moderator, and then you've said we're too serious, which I see as a ridiculous combination. It shows you aren't mature enough to take on the responsibility again. Hawk, you've been a good friend to me. Don't get me wrong. You've helped me through some very tough times and I do enjoy your company in chat most of the time. But I just don't think I can trust you with this job. VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 12:49, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Hawk, I like you, I find you to be a pleasant addition to chat and I'm really happy with the work you've put into Van Buren. However, my spidey-sense is tingling. I can't help but remember your "run" for Admin that you seemed to treat as a joke, and am left wondering if t he same is going on here. As such, I'm not sure if I should vote at all, never mind which way to vote. Agent c (talk) 13:49, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

This is no joke this time Chad, this is a real request. Whether you vote yes, no or neutral would mean a lot, so you I can know your opinion. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate
That comment worries me. Your admin vote was so you could learn everyones opinion, and I didn't appreciate the vote process being misused in that manner. Agent c (talk) 02:15, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
My admin request wasn't a joke either. I kept an open mind going into it. I didn't word my reply correctly. I went in with the intention of being an admin if I was voted in, which it didn't turn out that way, but it was a way to hear people opinions as well. Either way, it was no joke to me. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 02:21, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Joke was the wrong word as looking back at the admin post it was clearly serious for you, but it still seemed for all the wrong reasons and I felt you misused the process. In your own words " it was a way of showing myself that I don't want to be an admin" and wanted to get some honest feedback because you felt people weren't straight with you. That isn't what these votes are about, the feedback side is secondary to the main purpose. I have no problems with voting for another mod/Chatmod, but im not convinced so far that the main reason this vote was opened. Are we here because you want feedback first (and will moderate chat if the votes go your way) or are we really here because you feel there is a need for a mod and believe you are the person to do it? Sorry of I seem tough or like I'm against you (I'm not) but to me the intent is just as important as the action itself. Agent c (talk) 16:44, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Hm, as I remember correctly, you (Eric) gave up the moderator tools because "you don't deserve these rights". Care to explain why you want them now (again)? Energy X 16:55, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

( Does this not answer your questions? --Skire (talk) 16:57, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I feel there is need for another mod as school is around the corner for a lot of our mods. I feel that I could step in late at night since my schedule is more flexible at the moment. I'm not sure who else will be able to be on, so that's why I came to you guys to see if y'all would give me a second chance at a job I know I can do. And also, I'm here to voted into mod, Chad. There is no other reason beyond that. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 22:24, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to give support to this request if you had worked upon your previous grievances and matured to the point of which you could hold such a position, but you haven't. As an editor you're fine, your work is good and sound, but in chat you're far too lax with the rules and certainly there shouldn't be an. on/off switch for maturity or seriousness, as a Moderator that should be a given to set an example. Further more, I'd refer to the current debate regarding the current view on keeping the special user rights title of "Moderator", so I don't believe such a request should be made when the current policy regarding it is under questioning. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 14:12, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Gothic Neko brings up a good point. With the policy in question, even if you had unanimous support, now doesn't seem like the proper time. VictorFaceMonitor Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 14:18, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you said your mind through and through Neko, and I appreciate the feedback, and the thing with the whole discussion concerning the whole Moderator position was this request was going to drop at the time it did whether or not Limmie put up the other forum. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 02:02, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Devils advocate, my understanding of the proposal in the other thread is that the equivalent status to moderator (that is, a Cmod with Patrol rights) would still exist after any changes, so whether we want to call it a moderator or not, they still will exist.Agent c (talk) 14:22, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

The equivalent status would still exist, but the title may be removed or requirements changed to suit. At this moment in time it would be ill-advised for requests to be made for titles which are under questioning, whether or not it would have to be for a "Chat Moderator" Request or full "Moderator" request. Neko-signature Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 14:29, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
In either case, it has no effect on Hawk in real terms. Either the post requirement is lowered to meet Patroller, or it stays at full moderator level, both of which he meets. The title in of itself is nothing but prestige and has no real effect.Agent c (talk) 14:40, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Just try being a player. If you can do this I am sure you might one day be a worthy voice of the folks here.

User SP Bad Medicine SaintPainLook for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 02:59, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Alright Pain, thanks for the advice brother. I appreciate it, thanks. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 03:06, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the moderator position exists and will continue to be so during this vote's one week run. So I am not sure why that should even be a problem here at all. --Skire (talk) 13:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Points to ponder

I had held off on this vote because I thought it may be a difficult one for me to decide, but in the end, it was rather simple. From an editor standpoint, you are well qualified. The issue seemed to be your habits in chat. I see a lot of people talking about immaturity. Frankly, I don't think you're immature, Hawk, I think you simply like to have fun in chat. You're not immature, you're just a goof-off. Someone who is immature doesn't have the ability to be mature, while I believe you can be mature, but you choose to take chat with a less serious attitude. That means you can also choose to be more serious. The question is will you be?

I recalled a recent night when there were a number of users that were treading on the edge of the rules all night. It was late at night, I was the only mod on, and I was tired. I made an executive decision to grant temporary chat mod rights because I felt that if I didn't, chat would just go to hell after I left. I immediately decided you were someone I trusted to do this. And you delivered. Looking back, I've decided that the trust I had in you that night hasn't changed. I trusted you to be responsible then, why would it be any different now?

I also believe this should not be looked at as you asking for chat mod rights. I understand that these rights are the only ones you'll be granted from this request, but you are asking to be a full moderator. I view the full moderator position as a stepping stone to admin. Simply looking at your chat habits does a severe disservice to you and your editing skills. Your chat habits wouldn't be scrutinized on an admin application, would they? We have admins that barely even use chat. My position is that I'm judging your ability as an editor first, and your chat habits are ancillary.

One final note, we have no limits on users with special rights. I'm a little nonplussed when I hear on votes "we have enough already". If someone has the skills and ability, and is willing to take on the extra responsibilities, why should they not be considered? Bad timing? An arbitrary non-existent limit? Why would we make the decision to reserve rights that an editor qualifies for because of conditions outside of their qualifications? If a user is qualified for extra rights, and there are no limits on those users, they deserve those rights as much as any other. How would people feel if I decided that "my" arbitrary limit meant that some users had to give up their rights? Is anyone willing to step up and give up their rights? Of course not. You all deserve them, based on your qualifications and contributions. Eric does too, if he meets those criteria. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 18:38, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

The moderator position isn't a stepping stone for adminship, at all, patroller is. The full-mod is a valid per-requisite for adminship merely because it contains the patroller position, not because it has, in and of itself, any intrinsic value. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 18:42, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
That's your interpretation, and I have no problem with that. But I disagree. I'm certain you will grant me the same courtesy. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 18:50, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty much a factual matter, as a patroller he's already qualified to be an administrator, being a mod doesn't add to that in any way. You may of course still hold to your current opinion regardless, but I'd expect you'd like to have the opportunity to be corrected (or to correct me) on it. I don't see disputing opinions as an uncourteous act all, and never understood why some do. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 19:01, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I see as the difference: Full Moderators go through one process that patrollers don't to get their rights. They have to gain community trust. Patrollers only have to gain the trust of one bureaucrat. While the opinions of our BCs are important, I feel that the opinion of the entire community is just as important. If it were not, then why are admins not appointed also? This fact alone gives the full moderator position more weight in my eyes, especially when they are a patroller first and the vote comes later. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 19:08, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
It seems you take the additional election as a vote of confidence that would boost the applicant's credibility while making a request, and I suppose that could be so, even if it shouldn't be. The administrator application carries a vote already after all. It strikes me as rather disingenuous and insincere to request a right you have no intention of using just to get a more solid leg in a future application, specially when said leg results from a vice people have when making a choice, and one that should be fought, not indulged.
At any rate, in this request, Hawk makes no mention of doing this as an stepping stone for adminship; he's requesting these rights because he wants to use them, so the whole point (even if a valid one to make in it's own context) should IMO have no bearing here. He's asking to have chat mod rights in order to moderate chat, so if one is to take his request at face value (and I hope I can), then his chat habits are the only thing we should be looking at. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 19:52, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Gunny here. I feel that of course is up to your own interpretation, which Lim is perfectly entitled to, however. I see a Moderator as someone who has slight pull in both editing and chat. One technical based, on community based, which is good for an admin. I was once a moderator, I could ban in chat and rollback. I saw that as a great step to my adminship. Patroller is the same way, however, I don't feel that we should discredit the mod position as a stepping stone.--Bunny2Bubble 19:29, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Only patroller rights are a prerequisite for admin, and this is only a full mod request (as opposed to a chat mod request) because the applicant already has patroller rights. Now that we have the patroller position separately, the full mod position is merely a combination of a patrolling-chat mod or a chat-moderating patroller. It is not a special position. --Skire (talk) 23:14, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Result

The poll is finished. Now let's wait for the bureaucrats to have their saying (and decision, of course). Energy X 16:14, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Those changes in votes in the last few hours have just made the difference, Toc, and made the balance tip in your favor. I expect that you will do well this time around. Congrats! Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:28, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Other Wikia wikis

Random Wiki