Forum:Discussions moderator minimum requirements

	This forum page has been archived.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

As seen in this discussion topic Forum:Discussions_moderator_requests we've raised the possibility of increasing the minimum requirements for discussions moderators (DM). I will lay out a multi-faceted vote here to establish if this is desired by the community, and if so, in what form it will take. Please vote in each section after you have familiarized yourself with the discussion in the previous forum. For reference, the minimum requirements for DMs are:

• Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
• Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
• Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
• If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.

And the minimum requirements for chat moderator are:

• You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category, module 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, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.

Votes[]

Poll finished on 10:41 pm August 10, 2017 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support: # {{yes}} ~~~~ # {{no}} ~~~~ Please do not edit other user's votes.

Question #1: Should discussions moderators have a minimum post or edit requirement?[]

Discussions moderators should not have minimum edit or post requirements[]

Yes, they should have made a minimum number of discussions posts[]

1. TheBEASTisnear (talk) 04:22, August 6, 2017 (UTC) If they are to be a discussion moderator, they should be recognized by the community. If they have edits, then it's just icing on the cake.
2. Yodamort (talk) 23:18, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3. Vault-Tec Staff (talk) 1:13, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
4. CollinTheCourier (talk)) 06:16, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
5. We cannot seriously enforce that people from Discussions who plan to stay and moderate Discsussions require activity on a different section of the wiki. No amount of enforcing the 'one wiki' policy will change how distant and foreign editing is to the majority of Discussions users. --ArthurMaxson (talk) 13:22, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
6. Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:40, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
7. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 19:10, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
8. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 21:06, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
9. PhantomMenace87 (talk) 02:45, August 5, 2017 (UTC)PhantomMenace87
10. Changed my vote to posts because I won't get too far voting for neither. I'll take posts over edits because edits don't matter on the Discussions. Anyone I will trust with an endorsement will probably a fair amount of posts anyway. And, to add on to what Arthur said, we are clearly voting along community lines here. SSJ3 Rusticus (talk) 22:08, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
11. That Guy 69420 (talk) 02:30, August 5, 2017 (UTC)
12. changing my vote because while a minimum requirement of discussion posts but I definitely don't agree with an edit requirement.Quarterman812 (talk) 22:22, August 5, 2017 (UTC)
13. Soviet Wanderer (talk) It shows that they at least are dedicated to the discussions and have found a place for themselves. Everyone will know them after a few thousand posts, and I doubt anyone could win an election without already meeting whatever the requirement is, so why not make it official?
14. User:VicePresidentCharles (talk) They should know the place to run the place
15. Hauganz (talk) 06:40, August 6, 2017 (UTC)
16. Van Graff Thug (talk) 09:10, August 6, 2017 (UTC)
17. User:12345678abcdefg 123123abcabc (talk) 08:28, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they should have made a minimum number of edits on the wiki[]

1. Agent c (talk) 22:43, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
2. -Red Lucy (talk) 22:45, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:47, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
4.  The Gunny   22:49, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
5. Richie9999 (talk) 22:57, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
6. Vault-Tec Staff (talk) 2:19, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
7. Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:40, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
8. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 19:10, August 4, 2017 (UTC
9. --NukaTurtle (talk) 11:38, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Abstain[]

1. my answer is a little in column a and a little in column b, so cannot vote in good confidence here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaratte (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Question #2: If DMs are required to have a minimum number of discussions posts, it should be[]

At least 1000 posts[]

1. Agent c (talk) 22:43, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
2. we need enough to make scertain as to who someone is as a user, not so much that we can write war in peace about them. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 05:38, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
3. Vault-Tec Staff (talk) 2:21, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
4. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 19:10, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
5. I still say post count is pointless. But, I'll go with lowest possible amount. SSJ3 Rusticus (talk) 22:11, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
6. That Guy 69420 (talk) 02:33, August 5, 2017 (UTC) 1,000 seems reasonable for the community to get to know the candidate. Plus, 2,000 just seems like a weird number to use.
7. --NukaTurtle (talk) 11:39, August 5, 2017 (UTC)
8. Van Graff Thug (talk) 09:12, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

At least 2000 posts[]

1. TheBEASTisnear (talk) 04:29, August 6, 2017 (UTC) This is a fair number ensuring that they are active, not just a number some can reach in a few days. It is also low enough to not discount people who are trustworthy, yet new.
2. --DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:47, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3. Richie9999 (talk) 23:00, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
4. User: The Courier NCR for life
5. CollinTheCourier (talk) 06:18, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
6. --ArthurMaxson (talk) 13:23, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
7. If both wiki edits and discussion posts are necessary Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:40, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
8. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 21:08, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
9. PhantomMenace87 (talk) 00:05, August 5, 2017 (UTC)|PhantomMenace87
10. Quarterman812 (talk) 22:23, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

At least 5000 posts[]

1. -Red Lucy (talk) 22:45, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
2.  The Gunny   22:49, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3. Yodamort (talk) 23:19, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
4. If only discussion posts are necessary Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:40, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
5. Soviet Wanderer This will limit the pool of potential applicants to only the most experienced users.
6. User:VicePresidentCharles (talk) anyone dedicated enough to be an active mod would have reached this number
7. Hauganz (talk) 06:38, August 6, 2017 (UTC)
8. !2345678abcdefg talk 123123abcabc (talk) 08:32, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

Question #3: If DMs are required to have a minimum number of wiki edits, it should be[]

At least 50 article and 100 overall, just like chat mods[]

1. Agent c (talk) 22:43, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
2. -Red Lucy (talk) 22:45, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   22:49, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
4. Richie9999 (talk) 22:57, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
5. Yodamort (talk) 23:20, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
6. Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:40, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
7. --NukaTurtle (talk) 11:42, August 5, 2017 (UTC)
8. 12345678abcdefg (talk) 123123abcabc (talk) 08:33, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

At least 50 overall, just to show editing competency[]

1. TheBEASTisnear (talk) 04:26, August 6, 2017 (UTC) If it is to be required, then this is the better option of the two.
2. --DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:47, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
3. User: The Courier NCR for life
4. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 05:38, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
5. Vault-Tec Staff (talk) 2:22, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
6. CollinTheCourier (talk) 06:49, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
7. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 19:10, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
8. That Guy 69420 (talk) 02:36, August 5, 2017 (UTC) Gotta choose the lesser of two weevils.
9. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 23:31, August 5, 2017 (UTC)
10. User:VicePresidentCharles (talk)

Comments[]

This is the first forum vote that discussions users will be required to vote here in the forum. A reminder: users MUST place their own votes. Votes made in the discussions announcement topic will NOT be carried over to this forum. Admins may help users with placing their vote correctly and may fix poorly placed templates after verifying exactly what the user intended. The Gunny   22:41, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote. But I were to vote, I'd say no to the entire premise of this vote, and the discussion(s) behind it.

On the wiki-side of things, it makes sense to have milestones, as it's important to both gauge the effectiveness in a user's ability to understand the different aspects of a given wiki, required to be an effective editor, and to test their ability to innovate and lead the wiki towards a greater direction.

When it comes to the chat-side, and discussions-side of things... these milestones are largely absent; it's more important to have a fundamental understanding of how well received someone is within a given community, their ability to adapt to a new community should they take an extended leave, and whether or not they exhibit proper judgment. This understanding cannot be reached by setting arbitrary limits - and it cannot be reached by forcing them, in any capacity, to participate outside of their zone of specialty.

Cut the bureaucracy here. Go ahead and just toss it out with the bath. A little more subtlety will be appropriate, here, instead, because: endorsements are bunk, term-limits are bunk, editing milestones are bunk. When considering discussion-oriented moderators, of course.

Let the people vote for whom they wish - have someone trusted in-place to pass final verdict on these matters, and let the people have their medium for rebuttal should the verdict be unjust. It should be simpler than even that, but baby-steps, I suppose. ^寧靜 00:15, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Mr. Janaschi. I would encourage you to vote. I see no reasonable reason why you couldn't exercise that right. The Gunny   02:15, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Janaschi. We'll get a kick out of that one. ;)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not voting, because I am not going to speak for a community that I no longer belong to. I have an opinion, of course; but I consider that more of a consideration piece for potential voters, that an actual legitimate vote in-and-of-itself. So don't mind me - I've said my piece. ^寧靜 02:54, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually with Janaschi to a degree in this one and when the original discussion was brought to the table I asked why chat moderators needed an article edit count.if someone comes for the auxillary functions and would be good for that role, why enforce that they do something they are not particularly interested in a lose good moderators? A basic understanding of how to send messages and maybe create a basic link is about all that we need DM's to do, Rusty gets by very well at this level. I am all for encouraging others to edit, we have admins over at discussions who can respond to editing questions, so why do we need DM's to have this knowledge? I also asked the same of CM, the answer received makes sense, but I feel we have missed out on some good CM's making the cut because of this too.

All we need is proof that they can do the job of DM, that they can write an article. We are going to potentially stifle discussions in doing so and lead ourselves to a situation where only an "elite" (for lack do a better word) few can do the job that many more may be capable of.

Also for those who say editing on mobile is hard, I wrote this on mobile and at least 50% of my article edits are mobile too. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 05:38, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

I just want to take the time to point out with my bureaucrat hat on the following:

• If you don't like the proposal, vote against it.
• if anyone is considering any sort of confirmation request simply because they don't like that someone proposed something that they didn't like, you can consider this my well considered veto.

Democracy means we discuss and vote. It doesn't mean we shoot the guy who said something we don't like.Agent c (talk) 16:52, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation request? Hvat? ^寧靜 02:49, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is here if you care to read through the drama. I don't know if any comments have been deleted or not. I don't think a confirmation request is explicitly mentioned but I know this ties into it. http://fallout.fandom.com/d/p/3067788423738688744/ Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 02:54, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Um. Okay, then. ^寧靜 16:56, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Just like old times, Mr. Janaschi, is it not? The Gunny   02:55, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Taking this event into consideration, perhaps these sort of requirements would help filter the applicants better.--NukaTurtle (talk) 11:44, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

(←)  I would set the wiki edit requirement very low, if even at all. I believe most of the Discussion users just aren't editors, just as I am not a Discussion user. For many it just doesn't have their interest. If you look for example at the people who voted for Collin, plenty of them don't have one edit, or just a few. If wiki edits would be required, they'd just make some rather meaningless grammar edits to be done with it. I'd rank the discussion edit count much higher. The more edits there, the more time a potential moderator could spend keeping an eye on things. Jspoel 18:01, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable position J. I'll take this moment to clarify a few things again though: We're not asking all /d users to edit. We're only asking d/ users who want to mod to show us they can use the editor enough to do their job. I repeat: You can not block, see the report log or see talk page notifications to communicate with other staff from the app. If you are modding from the app, you only have two of the tools available to you: lock and delete. You can not see or clear the report log, so yo don't know what's been reported. You can't block. Because of this need, /dmods really need to at least be able to navigate the wiki pages needed and basically edit enough to communicate. Honestly, this whole thing came up because I saw we ask more of the cmods than /dmods. That is absurd on it's face since /dmods can block. My preferred solution, quite frankly, and especially since most of the /dmods don't seem to use desktop much, is to strip their block powers on the wiki, and /d lives on it's own and never the twain shall the wiki and /d meet. That seems to be the majority opinion of /d users. there is a tremendous feeling of us/them I see on the part of many /d users. But, since Wikia won't do it, it's never gonna happen. So we have to live with /d being a part of the wider wiki. Like it or not. And if that's the case, then I feel we need higher standards for /dmods. The rest of /d can stay on the app. But if you want to mod /d, you need to use the desktop site, and you should prove that you can do it. It's like handing a cop a sidearm but not making sure he can actually shoot the damn thing. The Gunny   20:32, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Our Mods know how to use the browser version to access talk pages, see reported content, ban, see discussion insights, etc. The DM rights have never been abused. We don't NEED to know how to edit. You just want us to.

Agent C, Pally, and even now Sakar assimilated into our side of the community. They worked with us. Not forced us. They even found ways to communicate with us.

Discussion Mods do more work than Chat Mods.

SSJ3 Rusticus (talk) 01:04, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Result[]

OK, looks like all future prospective discussions moderator applicants will be required to have a minimum of 2000 discussions posts before applying. The Gunny   23:29, August 10, 2017 (UTC)