Forum:Proposal - Removal of the moderator position

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Proposal - Removal of the moderator position

Following the previous discussion, this is a double vote to decide i) if the moderator position should be abolished as a separate, ditinct position with different requirements, or not; and ii) if the position should still remain as a separate nomenclature, i.e., in name only or disappear althogheter.

The first poll decides if the moderator position will continue to exist with a set of different requirements or not. If this vote passes, then people who want to acquire patroller and chat moderation rights will have to request said rights in separate through their respective course.

Assuming the first poll passes, we will then evaluate the result of the second poll to determine whether the name moderator will still apply to those with both chat moderator and rollback rights, or not. Voting yes will mean that patrollers with chat moderation rights (or the reverse) will simply bear both titles and both userright tags. Voting no will mean that said users will be automatically renamed moderator upon acquiring both sets of rights.

This poll will not be retroactive. Therefore, users that are already full moderators will not be affected by this poll, and will keep their names regardless.

Please note that the scope of this poll is merely to decide what is to be done with the moderator postion. Any other issues such as the change of the requirements for the other positions are not in any way relevant to this poll, and should therefore be discussed/voted in a separate thread/poll.

Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 19:28, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Should moderator be removed as distinct class with specific requirements?

• Voting yes will mean that users will be free to pursue the chat moderation and patroller rights in separate, instead of being restrained by the specific full-moderator requirements.
• Voting no will mean that the current status-quo will be maintained. No changes will be made.

Vote

Poll finished on 7:28 pm September 2, 2012 (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

• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• Chat mod rights and patroller rights are not related to each other at all as one is a position in the chat (off the wiki) and one is a position on the actual wiki. Thus, the acquisition of chat mod rights when one is already a patroller or patroller rights when one is already a chat mod should remain separate and follow procedure as if their pre-existing rights did not exist. --Skire (talk) 20:01, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
• I will support the removal of the current "process" ONLY if the bottom poll results in the Moderator position remaining in place for users with both sets of rights. Otherwise you will consider this a vote. The Gunny  
• They are in no way related. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 01:56, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 12:58, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Energy X ∞ 22:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• If a fella has got a degree in architecture we call him an architect, if he's got one in engineering, we call him an engineer. If he's got both, we call him both engineer and architect, we ain't gonna make up a new name for him, and sure as heck ain't gonna make it harder for the fella to get a degree in engineering just cause he's already got one in architecture. CharlesLeCheck 15:12, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Per these statements. Pony of the East 19:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I know that the mod position is just the two put togheter so it is easier if they are separated. Corniolio (talk)
• oh please, this thing is still around? First of all, why keep this stupid title? It's complete redundancy all the way. To me it feels like people have to loop through another similar obstacle they have hit before, not even being hard, but just a waste of time to the point it'll cause anyone to raise an eyebrow and state: "why is this even here in the first place?" It has no use if 2 titles together already cover this. In my viewpoint, you got 3 options.

-Delete this stupid title and keep Chat mod and the Patroller around. -Delete the Patroller title and nudge in Moderator there as the replacement. -do what the next voting basically shows: delete this rank, but keep the title when a person achieves Chat mod and Patroller rights, transforming into a Moderator Title, which is the most organized proposition. ex: Chat Moderator+Patroller (woah that's a decently big name combo eh?) is quickly scrunched into just Moderator, no fuss no buts! This can actually effect the Wikia in a good way, especially in the long run too. What's stopping everyone from taking note of this? It's like demanding the same fucking medal you won twice for one action, it doesn't work like that.--Zerginfestor (talk) 06:04, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

No

• Agent c (talk) 19:30, August 26, 2012 (UTC) I would like users to before taking the second set of rights to show that they're capable and reliable with the first set of rights first, as such I think an "upgrade" requirement is appropriate, the question seems to be how much this is.
• I believe the separation of Chat mod and Mod show the User which path they would like to take on this Wiki. I feel like doing well as a mod is respective of doing well as an admin. Fully necessary in my opinion. -- 19:34, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
• I think the mod status is necessary not only as a bridge to admin, but in itself. Being a mod means having the responsibilities of a patroller, plus the involvement with the community of a chat mod, though not being ready to become administrator yet. It is a middle-term position, and I believe it should not be removed.--C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 02:24, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Crimson Frankie, there isn't much else to be said in my opinion. -- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 02:30, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• If the mod position would be removed and the chat mod would gain same tools as mod, I have to ask - how many peple would use those tools? Energy X ∞ 09:02, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Not a broken position. 12:51, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see the Mod position as a problem at all, nor do I see this as a solution.--For NCR (talk) 13:34, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Kingclyde (talk) 08:48, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
• Frankie said what I was gonna say... Prepare for the Future!
• I was gonna say what the nuclear king was gonna say... ^{"THE WABBAJACK!"} 04:12, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
• Denis said what I wanted to say -_- ^"Gus" 21:37, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I agree. This is not a faulty position, and is used as a milestone to further advancement in tools. All it needs is a little tweaking to set it apart from the other two positions underneath it. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

If the first poll pass, should we also remove the moderator title for users with both sets of rights?

• Voting yes will mean that patrollers with chat moderation rights (or the reverse) will simply bear both titles and both user-right tags.
• Voting no will mean that users will be automatically renamed moderator upon acquiring both sets of rights.

Vote

Poll finished on 7:28 pm September 2, 2012 (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

• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• This is fully necessary in my opinion. Assuming the above vote passes, these two sets of rights will have had their respective acquisitions and so remain unrelated to each other. If there is no vote for the combined moderator position, there should be no title for the combined moderator position. The "moderator" title also carries a higher significance as a community vote used to be required. Now that is no longer true, the significance of the title is disproportional to the effort of acquiring the position, compared to before and should thus be scrapped. Finally, patroller and chat mod rights pertain to separate entities - the chat and the wiki; they are not to be mixed into one title for the sake of it being too wordy or because "we have to add two titles!" --Skire (talk) 20:11, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Same reasoning as on the first vote CharlesLeCheck 15:13, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

No

• Agent c (talk) 19:31, August 26, 2012 (UTC) "Chat Moderator" is wordy enough as it is, "Chat moderator and Patroller" is way too long. Moderator does the job fine.
• Where is that practicality in removing the title? So instead of adding just one template or how ever it is user get the titles, we would instead have to add two? Just more work. And in the end, I'm sure it would just feel like more of an accomplishment, to be called a moderator. And if we DO decide to change it to "Chat moderator and "Patroller", we might as well change Admin to "Chat Moderator, Patroller, block user, lock pages" and so forth. Same principal, still failing. -- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 19:43, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
• I do not wish for the Moderator position to be redacted. The Gunny  
• Completely agree with OWR. Two tags is superfluous. It should remain as moderator for those who fill the position.-- 00:23, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Redundancy. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 01:57, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Energy X ∞ 09:02, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• 12:51, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• -- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 15:19, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
• No for this, too. Prepare for the Future!
• Pony of the East 19:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sticking to my guns from the first vote on here. It's a position that's always worked fine, and it just needs tweaking; not removing. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

Neutral

• The name doesn't matter... Corniolio (talk)

---

Patroller rights given by bureaucrat

While we're voting on a change in user rights position I want to add another vote related to this one. For some reason bureaucrats appearantly aren't allowed anymore to give a user with great commitment/dedication/talent patroller rights anymore on their own call (so the request not directly coming from the user). Just noticed that yesterday, think it got removed the last time we had a discussion about this, I hope by accident. For example I got them without asking after a few weeks (called rollback rights then) and I think GhostAvatar got them without asking, from Ausir. It really gave me a boost getting them unexpected at the time. I don't see it in the policy anymore and simply put, I want it back in the policy. I'd like the opportunity to reward talent and committed people on a bc's call. Below I've added the poll, and I hope for your approval.

Vote

Poll finished on 7:28 pm September 2, 2012 (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

• Agreed.-- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 16:36, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
• Don't understand the issue. If a Burecrat feels someone is able to do the job, as long as they meet the usual edit count guidelines, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to suggest to someone that they become a patroller? Agent c (talk) 18:09, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
•  The Gunny  
• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• --Skire (talk)
• I had no idea this was abolished in the first place. 06:08, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
• Kingclyde (talk) 07:55, August 30, 2012 (UTC) Who removed it?
• Dead Gunner (talk) This sounds easier and i don't think any bureaucrat on here has bad judgement.
• CharlesLeCheck 15:15, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Why elect a bureaucrat if you don't trust them? ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 07:05, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to ever vote no to this. If the user in question doesn't want the rights, he can just as easily remove the title. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

No

• I think it would be frightening if somebody gave me a position and I didn't want to, I shouldn't be forced to do something I am not ready to do because I will just disappoint and everyone will be blaming me. Corniolio (talk)

Neutral

• If a person wants to have some rollback, why don't they ask first? Unless it is out of gratitude. Energy X ∞ 12:43, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

@OWR: Administrators and bureaucrats do receive unique aditional reponsabilities and rights, it's not simply an accumulation of functions like moderator is. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:02, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

And I understand that, but please correct me if I'm wrong, but can admins not also do everything moderators can? Now I do see that my example may have been a little of a stretch, but I'm sure you can kinda so where I was going? It just seems redundant to me.-- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 20:05, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand your point of view, and I recognnise the merits in it. I just don't happen to agree with it :) Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:10, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

@Energy X: Chat mod won't receive the same tools as a mod, in fact chat mod and patroller will remain completely separate. All that's happening is the removal of the specific per-requirements for the full moderator position, which is in fact nothing but the accumulation of patroller and chat mod rights. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 15:30, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Changing vote then. Energy X ∞ 22:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how this was moved to a vote without finishing the discussion?--Kingclyde (talk) 08:47, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

The thread remained for five days without any input, so we assumed it had already exhausted itself. I'm sorry if it was otherwise. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 10:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was finished for a long time, and many agreed to go to a vote. And are bureaucrats supposed to vote on this? --Skire (talk) 16:51, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Not to reopen something, but when I posted there was not anything that said "ok this is going to a vote" or anything. The last person to comment on the topic was the prior day so I would as would anyone assume that the discuss was still active. And for the record, bureaucrats are not supposed to vote on people getting rights. If we weren't allowed to vote on policies that would limit our say in the community.--Kingclyde (talk) 11:47, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 3rd vote: Only if we stop listing patrollers should I support this. Otherwise the list will quickly over-flood since the position has lost exclusivity and even the minimal effort of contacting a bureaucrat after making a few edits. --Skire (talk) 17:07, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sigma there. And say, what if the user is just a good editor, yet doesn't want Patroller? I think they should continue to take the miminal effort to go through an bureaucrat. -- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 17:10, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  These kind of patroller handouts will only be given sparingly. I can only remember myself and GhostAvatar getting them without asking. But I consider it important enough to be able to give. When a new game is released (or maybe even before that) some new talent is likely to emerge and as I see it, when they receive them without asking, they will consider it of higher value and appreciation then if they have to ask for it themselves. That's how I felt it at the time anyway. And they would become patroller one way or the other soon enough, talent is spotted easily here. So the list of patrollers without or without the new rule would become the same. About listing the patrollers, that can be another discussion, that's more of an administrative matter. Jspoel 17:45, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Js, I don't see where the new proposal removes BC rights to mete out patroller rights. If it does that, I'm changing my vote to no on both issues. Perhaps you could link me to where this is so I can make an informed vote? The Gunny   01:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Limmie? I still see that a patroller need only ask a 'crat in the policies. From where was this "removed"? ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 02:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

The new proposal says nothing about this issue, it's a complementary policy suggestion. I did some history checking from around November 2010 (things were simple back then) on the administrator page and actually the rollback handout wasn't even in the policy. I think if a bc felt like it seeing a talented and commited user at work he just handed it out, no questions asked. GhostAvatar got them after 2 weeks being a member, I got them after 3 weeks. Further checking the history I can't find it either, so I guess it was never in the policy. But what I mean, right now a user can ask a bc for patroller rights if they meet the requirements. What I want added is that a bc can give a user patroller rights, without them having asked for it. You see how I got them here. You can see by my reaction I was pretty impressed by it and didn't expect it. So that's the difference. Jspoel 06:21, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, reading it back on Ausir's talkpage (Archive 10) it doesn't show really great awe, but I still know how I felt at the time. Jspoel 06:28, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, will users still be able to request patroller rights? Or must they only await a bureaucrat to spot them? And I feel like this "handing-out" of the rights doesn't make it a position any more so I would like them to not be listed, assuming the vote passes. I think this is a simple matter that can be decided here - if you are willing to discontinue the listing of patrollers, then I will be all for this. --Skire (talk) 13:58, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Both will be possible if this passes. I don't see a need to discontinue the list of patrollers at this moment, so with them having that nice little avatar, to a general listing. There aren't that many yet. Jspoel 15:59, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for clarifying that, J. I'm all for it. As far as I'm concerned BCs already had the power to grant rights like that. The process for someone "asking for patroller rights" is laid out, but it never says BC's can't grant them if they felt it warranted. The Gunny   20:06, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Same here, I wouldn't expect anybody complaining if an BC granted the position just because the receiver didn't officially request it. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

XD Nice one 75. We need to keep this train going! I saw zerg voted here and was like "Well, this is going to be a fun read!" ^{"THE WABBAJACK!"} 06:21, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Break

@Frankie: You could still have all that without being punished for choosing to become a chat moderator first. I'm only moving so that chat mods can have the same shots at being an administrator as an ordinary user. If you want to keep the moderator position, you can vote yes on the first poll and no on the second. That way everything you are defending will remain, and the unfairness to chat mods will be removed as they will be able to become moderators (and be eligible for adminship down the road) as soon as a user without rights. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 05:09, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

• I feel it's honestly stupid to suddenly limit social people the chances of rights to help and work around the wikia, so what if they chose to be Chat moderators then work their way into gaining Patroller rights? You want to limit people who like talking to others and helping? It's borderline crazy. It seems people are keeping the title Moderator because it's a 'shiny' and 'normal' title that's been used for years in the Internet world, along with being a huge-ass useless meatshield of a wall for people to leap over again, with no issues whatsoever, so why put it there? Having this, limiting people, and placing a redundant title is overall unfair, useless, and practically confusing as hell. Just gut the pig already and be done with it.--Zerginfestor (talk) 06:15, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

• Notice I never voted for or against ?

My vote is still open. I invite "Sell it for or against"

• Re post what you see as the Best & Worst points. I missed a few.

~;) You could just take it as a cue to wrap it up.

It is just Fallout after all.

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 06:30, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

=Bottom line he or she said

QUOTE :

For some reason bureaucrats appearantly aren't allowed anymore to give a user with great commitment/dedication/talent.

.. What exactly ? What powers do you want ? What limitation is to much ?

I just wanted to be sure we all knew what you are fighting about before I vote.

I am happy as a member.

SaintPain→ Look for me Dec 22 Y'all know what I'm say'n. 07:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Results

Moderator position stays in its current state as do all other positions. Patroller rights continue to be granted by bureaucrats.--Kingclyde (talk) 11:38, September 3, 2012 (UTC)