Forum:Restructuring Chat moderator requests

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Restructuring Chat moderator requests | Post

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);

• 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.

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)

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:42, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

And as for the points raised by Beds:

1. There's probably no quick fix for that but a discussion-based system would at least help to mitigate these issues.
2. Per above.
3. I don't think a cooldown period is really necessary. I don't think it's a big deal how soon after a request is closed that another user applies. Maybe we could consider allowing multiple requests at once (another way of making the discussion system less "strict"), for whatever good that'll do. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:46, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Why would an RfA/RfB-style process for RfCM be too strict? The answer is that it's not simply the discussion process, but also the Chat Moderator ruleset that we have in place, which ultimately makes it strict. It's the idea that adopting an even more formal policy brings with it the connotation that this position is extremely important and that only the absolute best will be accepted. I absolutely refuse to accept that a chat moderator selection is as "important" as an administrator selection - it's simply not true. I don't think RfCM needs to be as informal as Rollback requests, but I don't think it needs to match the strictness of an RfA.

On a side note... "Please keep your behavior civil and avoid attacking other users." Maybe we should keep this sentence in mind when we post responses to people. Just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean you have the right to be rude to them or to belittle the points they raise. </rant>. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:52, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for once again twisting my words and taking them out of context, like you often do whenever somebody I argue a point that contrasts yours. I never said that a Chat moderator selection was as important as selecting administrators. All I said was that the ability to shape a users access to a part of the wiki, whether it be a specific page (protection), the entire wiki (a block) or in this case Chat (banning from Chat) is a powerful ability to have and handing out that ability shouldn't be taken lightly. I even said it didn't need to be as formal as selecting administrators but clearly you've overlooked that part.

Oh and arguing a point and attacking/being rude to users are two completely different things. I never intended to, nor does it look to me like I attacked anybody and therefore I resent your accusations, though I probably shouldn't be surprised seeing as I've been your favourite target on multiple occasions. I'm done with this now, next you're probably going to baselessly accuse me of something else. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:52, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

"Just testing to see if anybody actually bothered to read that." - Yeah, that's just arguing a point. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 21:20, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we want to talk about taking points out of context... I never said that you had said that they were of equal importance. MY statement was that using the same exact process therefore supposes that the two are of equal importance; my whole point was that they are not. And while I realize you did say that it didn't need to be so formal, you failed to give any manner to accomplish that.

I'm sorry to see you're taking a disagreement so personally. Maybe you ought to look at the discussion about RfCM with a little less emotion. Everything else is a discussion for a different place and time. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 21:24, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Okay, I'm closing this due to one Lost "targeting" the other Lost. So, this is going to end now. Once the heat has died down, I will begin another thread, until then, I do not want any discussion on this topic anymore. End of discussion. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 22:11, September 23, 2013 (UTC)