Forum:Restructuring Chat moderator requests

This thread has been started as a direct response to this thread, which proposed a temporary closing of Chat moderator requests, subject to reforms to the promotion process. That thread addressed only the shutdown of the requests, not the changes that would be made after the requests were shut down. Since that thread was successful in its goal, a second discussion - what to do to change Chat Moderator requests - should now be held.

For the sake of keeping the introductory section to this thread short, I'll refrain from copy/pasting over discussions or points from the initial thread. A number of proposals and statements were made there, so it would be worth reading the first thread. Of course, those who made the proposals there are encouraged to re-state them here, and any other proposals by anyone else are more than welcome.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:07, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
So, seeing as I was the one who proposed for Chat requests to be closed in the first place, I'd thought I'd go ahead and start the discussion. The following points are taken from this thread (moving them over to this thread so it saves folk going back and forward); All three points stated above must be discussed as they are quite important as to how the requests are run. Feel free to ask any questions or perhaps suggest another rule or whatnot below. Discuss away... Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 14:06, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Users appear to be only taking part in voting due to high levels of an on-wiki friendship with the nominee. Instead of making a thoughtful vote, they give full support with weak reasoning.
 * We should perhaps consider a more revamped style to dealing with Chat moderator requests, we could probably even remove the voting system altogether and instead consider a more discussion based system.
 * A more personal opinion, but perhaps some will agree. Users who are willing to nominate themselves tend to do so a few minutes after a request has been closed. Perhaps we should introduce a rule, stating that users cannot nominate/or be nominated 24-48 hours after a request has been dealt with.


 * I don't see this to be a huge problem, however I'm indifferent to taking action on it. It's obvious that someone will be more inclined to vote for someone based off whether they like them or not, regardless of the system we use. Even if we implement the system we have with RfA, this will continue. The new system only makes it a bit more difficult to vote based on personal relationships as the vote needs a valid justification. As well, as Chat is a social feature I think that this could actually be good. A trait of a good Chat Moderator is the ability to get along with everyone, in which this is demonstrated.
 * Basically already covered this above. Though, I think a discussion-based voting system would be ideal, however with different valid justifications than for RfA and RfB. An example of a valid justification could be on how well they get along with others, as this is important for Chat Mods while lesser so for admins (though still important).
 * I don't see why this is a problem. --Bleeh (talk!) (edits) 00:21, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

I did not support closing down the chat mod requests, and I'm still not convinced that we really need to change the process we have now. However, I would agree that voting is not a way to make decisions on the wiki; consensus should always be favored. My main concern is that adopting a consensus system similar to the RfA/RfB system would put too much of a roadblock in front of what is essentially a very weak position. There is a legitimate reason to have a drawn-out discussion process in regards to selecting administrators and bureacurats. Administrators and bureaucrats are given a lot of very powerful tools, access to restricted pages on the wiki (MediaWiki pages, fully protected pages, etc), and the ability to warn and block users. However, Chat moderators have only one ability, and it's one that can be very easily rolled-back by an administrator or even another chat moderator. I think making the process even stricter than it already is (and I believe it is already quite strict) is only going to discourage capable and eligible people from putting their name forward.

Getting to Beds' three points... 1- I don't really have any way that we can limit that, aside from what we're already doing. 2- As I've stated, I would support a discussion based system, so long as it does not make the chat moderator request process even more difficult than it already is. 3- This doesn't surprise me at all, as this sometimes happens with other rights requests as well. People who file a request often have a desire to make the request long before they actually do so, and probably choose to make it soon after a prior request because it's still fresh in everyone's heads. I don't see any reason why we should attempt to limit this, so I am opposed to any "cooldown period" after the conclusion of a request.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:03, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

To everybody claiming that the current system and the RfA/RfB system is too strict for RfCM, tell me how exactly it's too strict. To date, I'm unaware of anybody feeling discouraged from submitting an application. I agree it doesn't need to be as formal as RfA/RfB but I did say we can adapt the discussion system to our needs. Just testing to see if anybody actually bothered to read that.

Yes there are more straightforward systems in place like we have for Requests for Rollback but I do not think this system is at all suitable for RfCM. The Chat moderator user right allows for one to carry out decisions that some may see as more controversial than rollbacking an edit besides the fact that the ability to ban users is actually part of an administrator's job anyway, which we've opted to give to trusted users, not to mention this ability is a powerful one in its own right. This is why I feel community input is required for these rights and I feel that we, as a community, would be making a critical mistake if we wanted to simplify RfCM to that level.

Logically, any system we put into place is still going to be "strict" to some extent. Obviously the voting requirements would be more relaxed, if we go the discussion route, for RfCM than RfA/RfB in order to accommodate the Chat community in its entirety. That alone already looks less "strict" in my eyes. Maybe we can drop the "individual pages for each request" rule and keep RfCM on one page, as it is already, and just go with a 5 day discussion period followed by, if need be, a 1 week voting period. That alone already looks less "formal" to me. If this is still too much then I honestly don't know what you all want in an ideal system. 18:42, September 23, 2013 (UTC)