Forum:Endorsement for chat moderators

	This forum page has been archived.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

Okay, so we've had a quite a few new people running for chat moderator, which is great and the use of "chat moderator applications must be endorsed by an admin" helps to keep out the... undesirables. However, I was thinking why endorsed by an admin? Why not by a moderator or chat moderator, too? After all, I thought the general consensus was that admins are not necessarily higher than mods or chat mods, especially not when it comes to that chat. I feel that allowing admins (some of who do not frequent chat often, if at all) to dictate who can and can't be a moderator is giving them special power over chat, and placing them higher than chat moderators when it comes to moderating chat, which seems rather silly to me.

I am completely supporting of the rule of endorsement being required to run for chat moderator, but would like to see it extended from "by an admin" to "by an admin, moderator or chat moderator". JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:43, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Comments[]

I agree. I would say any user that is holding at least the rights of Chat Moderator deserves to have more say in what affects the chat-room. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:29, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult topic to address. I would actually go as far as to question why it's needed in the first place. If it's a community vote, and rights are given out on an as needed basis, to me we have enough safeguards in place that undesirable candidates would be rooted out rather quickly.  A Follower  Talk  21:54, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Chat Moderator is the first position a user will run for, as Patroller status is handed out 99% of the time, and one needs Chat Moderator status now to move up to the Moderator position. Even when this was not the case, Chat Moderator requests were still the most numerous, so I can understand an endorsement rule to help keep the Chat Moderator requests from getting bogged down by the illegitimate runners. Once the bare minimums are put in, which are not much, even the most incompetent user would be able to run, which is what the endorsement rule is there to deter. The only other option would be to give Sysops the power to shut down incompetent requests, which I doubt anyone is really eager to do with examples already made in the past over users calling power abuse and harassment. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:51, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Chat Moderator is not required for admin. Only Patroller rights. "You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months. " Agent c (talk) 23:48, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about Admin requirements - just that the lower tool tiers are ran for first (I was one of the very few exceptions). ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:54, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Leon is right that although Chat mod isn't really lesser than Admin in terms of importance, people tend to run for it first, because of the lower requirements and because it's easier to be committed to chat than it is to the wiki. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:57, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

While there isn't supposed to be a rights hierarchy, as one goes from chat mod to admin to bureaucrat, the powers do indeed increase. Plenty of policy passed by the community increases bureaucratic powers, and I think in this case it was chosen to be given to the next "level" -- admins. This is a worthwhile discussion though and I applaud you for bringing it up. --Skire (talk) 01:18, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

Considering that it seems this discussion will be somewhat ignored/marginalized/not commented on (perhaps because all that there is to be said has been said), I suggest we leave another few days and go ahead and move to a vote. In the meantime, I'd also propose adding a separate change to the endorsement policy:

or

...or any variant thereof. Thoughts? --Skire (talk) 01:37, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't endorse on those grounds already anyways. The Gunny   01:44, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I believe the latter is the best choice, as it means our b'crats appear impartial at all times. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:58, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

If this is to move to a vote, I believe their should be a n option to remove the endorsement policy entirely. I dislike the idea of a small group of us essentially vetoing a proposal because none of us are willing to support it. The result of the vote is endorsement enough should it pass in my eyes, and everyone should get a fair shot at getting the opinion of the community.  A Follower  Talk  19:06, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

This whole "impartiality expectation" seems contradictory to me... We don't want admins to vote because people might be swayed... but admins and other well known users do openly vote, often with long winded explanations and engage in debate on the forum in an attempt to sway others - they also discuss their vote openly elsewhere. Why is a Bureaucrat not allowed to express their opinion, everyone else can?

If this was truly about impartiality and not swaying voters, we'd see a proposal here for a secret ballot... Which no-one to my knowledge has ever proposed. Agent c (talk) 19:18, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to impartiality, I believe Bureaucrats should have the right to vote and make decisions just the same as every other rights group. As a trade-off, though, I would expect a detailed report from every Bureaucrat as to how they came to their decision(s), so that if bias or incompetence ever comes into the mix, the community or Administrative veto can go into effect and relinquish vote control back to the community. This wiki does place a lot of importance on transparency anyhow, so to be honest, this should be the norm regardless of impartiality issues.

As for Follower's proposal, I say definitely. We should always take every option into account when making an informed vote/decision. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:35, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with A Follower on this. Removal of the endorsement policy should be put on the vote (if there is one). There's too much controversy around whether or not a Bureaucrat should endorse anyways. I was endorsed by one and no one batted an eye, but for some reason now people don't want it. I say let's remove it and let everything slide into place from there. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."

No offense, but what controversy? If you mean the one conversation had between 2 certain users here, then I would consider it rather dramatic to consider that a controversy worthy of throwing out one of our rules. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:41, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean controversy, I meant conflict more or less. My misuse of words gets the best of me. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 20:43, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Well, I certainly support the notion of discussing/voting on the matter. Personally, I agree with the rule, but I can understand why others would not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:47, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with The Gunslinger on this (Though I am a bit biased, given my situation). The endorsement DOES keep out the undesirables, b{{Infoboxut it seems a bit arbitrary for it JUST to be Admins who are able to endorse. It would make sense for the ability to expand to Other chat mods, perhaps a few, I.E. 2 Chat Mod endorsements = 1 Admin endorsement. This is only my opinion, and I do think that tossing out the endorsement requirement would be the simplest course of action.What do you need, Boss? (talk)

This I do not agree with. While I can understand why people might be against endorsements, I can guarantee you now that removing the endorsement rule will not be the simplest course of action. Maybe you were not around during our active periods, but we have always had a problem with everyone and their siblings trying to run for tools they are nowhere near qualified for. Endorsements are a boon when it comes to weeding out these rights trolls. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:50, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this would invite all manner of rabble to run for every position they could think of, these scum of internet society would be quickly struck down at a vote, if there ever was one. The only problem this would cause is some minor congestion of the Forums. What do you need, boss? (talk) 20:57, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

It is my fault, because I should have explained better: the reason why rights trolls are harmful is two-fold:

1. Even if less than 10 people vote, which instantly invalidates any vote, the entire process will still run its full course of 2-3 weeks. This just wastes everybody's time, and fills up the recent changes.
2. Anytime a rights request is underway, it places our wiki in a state of limbo when concerning Wikia matters. For instance, when I was working on the wiki so I could get us spotlighted, we were still forced to wait even after I finished everything, because of the rights requests going on at the time (we had 4, if I remember correctly). ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:01, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. This would cause a bit of a stir, from what you are saying. If it comes to a vote and passes, it happens. If not, it doesnt, It as simple as that. We will have to wait and see.

What do you need, boss? (talk) 21:05, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

@A Follower: I will support an option for complete removal of the endorsement requirement, although I myself think it is a poor idea to remove it completely. --Skire (talk) 00:05, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I have made a draft of the vote. (Don't worry, I have no intentions on publishing it until we're all on board.) Any suggestions, comments, etc.? --Skire (talk) 00:20, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

All seems to be in order, Skire. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:26, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Same. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)