Forum:Using Forums for Mod Appointment

Alright, I think it is time we discuss an important issue on this wiki concerning the usage of forums. Mainly I'm annoyed about how we keep on using them to discuss granting users rollback and chat moderator rights. We should not be doing this, I think that it is a waste of time, it leads to a bunch of unrelated arguments and voting is mainly based on popularity. I believe instead of forums we should let the promotions to chat moderator up to the admins and/or chat moderators and the promotions to rollback to admins and/or rollbacks. I have talked to a bunch of users about this and they have agreed with me, it is just a few certain users who insist on always using forums even in cases when it was unnecessary * COUGH*nova and hungry*COUGH* just because it is the rule, so I think we should amend this rule.

We do not need every single user's input on who is and is not qualified for these positions, nor do we need more arguments and wastes of time. If we let users who already have the rights in question decide then things will go along quicker, more smoothly and I doubt poor choices will be made. Now decisions do not need to be permanent, like if a user is made a chat mod and they are abusing their powers then I think it is more than fair to open a discuss about taking their rights away.

Now, I am hoping in this forum we can first discuss whether or not we want to amend the rules to get rid of the need to use forums. Next, I think we should discuss whether just the admins, just the mods/rollback (depending on which right it is), or both should be the deciders and then hopefully we will be done with this crap for good.

04:00, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Yeah,and the rule was bypassed the last time anyway.--

I agree, this is not what the forum is for

Joekido (talk) 04:12, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree this rule needs to go  04:14, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but sometimes certain things need a forum, when half the community is against the opinion. If it's one or two, or a bunch of newbies, or outright obvious thing, then forums are definitely not needed. Let's say 50% of us doesn't want that person to become a chat moderator for some reason, and 50% does. Rule should say something like "forums unnecessary if [#]% is in favor/against [something]". 04:14, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

But you cant know if the community is against a certain person from gaining a chat mod/rollback rights.I say that these rights are so insignificant that admins can just make their own decision and promote a guy,but demote him only if there are complaints.--

True. Genocyber was getting more and more of a douche over the years, and we still gave him a forum case to discuss about giving him one more chance in the third discussion (until he screwed a ton of insults at us). But yeah, I think the rule should say "if [#]% doesn't agree with [something] becoming a moderator (or something else" then raise a forum". Some people aren't fit to be a moderator, but people nominate them anyways due to bias and whatnot 04:19, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

They are popularity contests. My comments were blatantly ignored last time when I showed proof that Nova would make a bad mod. SeaTerror (talk) 04:20, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict AGAIN] Guess I want to say is: if the people remain silent, then we don't need a forum. If someone raises a fuss (with a good reason), then we go for one. 04:21, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Unless it brings in a major issue, it should not be used. Such as blocking users who have been completely insulting, should be banned. Making someone a mod and more then 5 people argue it, then it should be. Funny that a forum say's we should make less forums though.

04:26, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if nobody here is gonna argue, then we can just change the rules regarding forum usage. Ironically, making such a short and (most likely) obvious result forum to deal with making too much meaningless forums. 04:29, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... So it seems so. Welp, I hope that's it. An admins word is usually official. Maybe the rules could be somewhat like

1. It can only go to issues causing over 5 people to argue.

2. Only about banning 1 year long or longer users who have been starting to get rude.

3. Huge blog and copyright issues.

My opinion though. Hope it helps.

04:32, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree about the blocking(known users),I only agree with the promotions though.--

alright, so since no one seems to be disagreeing, i think its fair to say that if we wait a few days and no one has a problem with this then we should just amend the rule to get rid of the need for forums for giving users chat mod and/or rollback rights, preferably without using a poll-- 04:50, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Forums should always be used. 04:58, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

no, forums should never be used unless necessary and in cases like this, they are not necessary-- 05:00, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Now now now, let Galaxy state the reasons before we start a witch hunt. Please, state your reasons.

05:02, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

The reason is because it allows the community to have a say in things. It doesn't matter how small a position of power it is, a chat mod still has power over other users.

Rollbacks don't matter though. 05:10, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

the time it takes and arguments it creates arent worth it-- 05:11, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well... Here is mine. A wiki should only give power to the admins. They should make the choice pg who gets power. A wiki is not a democracy, but communism. Everyone plays a part, but some get more then others.

My opinion, sadly.

05:15, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Chat mods and Rollbacks are damn insignificant,so just let teh admins decide upon them and dont tell me we're voting on this one ;(--

Neither me nor any other rollback has opened a forum for the rights, we just ask a 'crat. But yeah I agree the mods should be decided by the admins themselves without forums/polls and whatnot. Promoting permanent admins is a different case though, huge change to the wiki which can't go unpolled IMO. Also banning regulars is a matter than should be polled because it's not gonna end well otherwise... 06:46, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Like Staw said, using forums to decide mods and rollbacks is just going to devolve into popularity contests. The only reason for opening a forum for something like that is if several people contest the appointment. Forums should be used for bans and promoting admins since those are both important for everyone. 07:34, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Finally, my point gets across to someone. Thank whoever you refer to as God. Time to stop wasting time with meaningless and trivial shit just because a select number of people like to feel like they can run everything. Let the fast turnarounds begin! Wahoo! 08:16, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion since last and I'm still "for" using the forums to decide chat moderators/rollback users, so I don't have anything more to add. In the end we'll have to poll this and abide by the result, whether to keep the aforementioned rule as is or change it. MasterDeva (talk) 09:34, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Lol why do you even bother commenting Deva. This whole wiki has become toxic due to these forums, all they do is start arguments and insult users. Gal only wants to keep them so he can have a say, if he was admin he would be all for this. And don't say otherwise gal we know you are full of it. Get rid of those idiotic forums, I've had enough of this wiki and what it has become and I know I'm not the only one. 10:09, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I could respond to you the same way Straw Hat Boy but I would rather not. The way you've phrased your above comment implies that it is the community's fault that it has become toxic and if so I assure you, no matter what the rules say unless the community itself is changed things will not get any better. If you want to solve a problem you deal with the source of it, not just the symptoms. Lastly, if you had enough of the wiki feel free to leave and spare yourself the suffering. MasterDeva (talk) 10:32, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

The source you say hmmmmm well that's easy, get rid of Gal and his cronies. Most people on chat talk about it I just thought I would say it on here. Oh and my " Lol why do you even bother commenting Deva" was implyig that you only come here every now and then so you don't lose your admin powers. 10:40, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

If "most people on the chat" say it, then why aren't they bothering saying it here too? Their opinion would be appreciated. Also, nice straw man argument there Straw Hat Boy. MasterDeva (talk) 10:51, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Deva,most people here are saying it-__-..--


 * I did not mean that. I am not ignoring what you said above, I'm simply saying that more people should comment on this issue, since there are many who are frequenting the chat. That's all. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. MasterDeva (talk) 10:58, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Anytime big boy ;)  10:55, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed with SHB's last comments. And it is true that what has been said here is backed up by most people in chat whenever the discussion comes to that. 10:59, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am a little early to say that not many people have come here to comment yet, the thread was recently been opened after all... MasterDeva (talk) 11:03, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I came here to say that i agree with shb. User:X-RAPTOR 11:06, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Trusting admins and mods to make wise choices can work well… But have I to remind you all that the whole mess started because one admin decided to choose mods in the worst possible way (first four users to comment on a blog, or something)? No wonder people were kinda paranoid with this issue afterwards… Once bitten, twice shy.

However, it was a long time ago, and there are many more mods, so maybe it would work better now. If a majority of users think they can trust admins/mods/rollbacks to choose mods/rollbacks, then let it be, I personally don't care. Be sure to state in the new rule that any position can be questioned by the community, though.

My main concern in all of this is if we're supposed to only start a forum if there's _% support of a person gaining mod rights, how are we supposed to know the stances of most editors on the wiki without a forum? You can say "the chat", but that's a really bad metric to base things on, since about a third to a half of our active editors (real editors who change articles and whatnot) never enter the chat. I'm an active editor and a big fan of the chat, but even I've gone a couple weeks without going in chat and monitoring the wiki feed for anything except active discussions. It's impossible to have any decision regarding a "majority opinion" to be made without the use of some kind of forum.

What we need to do is not avoid creating forums, but find a way to force them to resolve quickly. Or at least avoid a poll if we can.

An idea I had during the last forum about mods was a compromise that gave us mods quickly, while still preserving the nominate/voting system. The basic idea is that no matter what happens, the forum will be no longer than one week. The reason these take so long is that the pre-poll discussion always gets out of hand (and we always argue about the election rule too...). So we start the discussion and nomination periods simultaneously to get the ball rolling right away. At the beginning of the forum, we state the time(s) where a mod is needed (timezone is not necessarily relevant. Someone who works nights, but is free in the afternoon in the US can cover the same exact time as someone in Europe who is free at night) and anyone who accepts their nomination promises they can be free during that time. If there is not a clear majority (less than 1/3 in disagreement) based on the discussion, then we should move on to a 4-day poll. At the end, 7 days (or 3 days, in the case of a clear majority) is up, everyone's had their input, and we've got a new mod, in a mostly pain-free process.

And since this is a forum related to mods, I have one more thing I want to get off my mind: We should never allow the banning of a user as a joke, even if it's only for 3 seconds. To me, that is an abuse of power. Chat bans should only be done when they are needed. Kicks are harmless, but bans shouldn't be a joke.

And we never have, nor ever should make forums about rollback rights. (in fact, didn't we state awhile ago in some random forum that User:Zodiaque deserved the rights? As far as I know, despite having a bunch of support from other rollbackers, he never got them.)

Anyways, I hope this is a fair compromise of the two systems, and that most people can understand how it is positive for both sides. Compromise can be a powerful thing when people are good enough to let a few things go and not be completely stubborn all the time. 15:33, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

"Gal only wants to keep them so he can have a say, if he was admin he would be all for this. And don't say otherwise gal we know you are full of it.".

Nice attempt at an insult, but I rate it 0/10.

I wouldn't, because I know a community decision is the fair and right way to do these things. 15:34, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

No insult intended, just speaking candidly. 15:39, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: some mods and admins don't know or talk to some users - timezones, can't be arsed, it doesn't really matter. But how can an admin decide if someone is a good mod if they don't know them, unless they talk to the general community? That's the main flaw I can think of, but if we can find a way around it then I fully support removing this kind of appointment from forums. I agree with SHB.

Also, Canu, the point you made at the top - I was made a mod in chat and it was Staw who demanded it go to a forum. Just to be clear.

16:08, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

No, no I made the forum before you guys got mod. Also promoting mods must be left to the admins that actually join the chat but that's not even necessary to mention. Though it would be cool to see all the admins coming to chat from time to time.. 16:39, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Forums are a necessity. It's how we deal with them is the problem. I'll only talk about the chat moderators and rollbacks for now, since I'm a chat moderator and rollback myself, and anyway, I'm not an active editor anymore. Later, maybe I'll add my two cents to the other kinds of forums in here.

Electing chat moderators is basically a popularity contest in here. Most people don't think if someone would be a good mod or not, they think of how much they like the candidate or not. I admit, I originally saw nothing wrong with this, but now, after experiencing countless chat moderator discussions in the chat, and several forums, most of them causing drama, and making many people felt sore. It's not really a good idea leaving the decision of a new mod to everyone, since most people aren't thinking of what would be the best for the wiki. I feel that leaving the decision of a new mod should be left to moderators and admins, particularly the admins who are active on the chat such as DP.

As for the rollbacks, why should it be a big deal? The only things you can do if you're a rollback is undo vandalism and bad edits faster and rename images. We shouldn't treat it as a big deal and only hand it to users who have been on the wiki for years and years and have 10k edits or whatever. If there's a good editor asking for the right, I see absolutely no problems with giving it. The only problem would be us handing the right to everyone like candies, which would never happen, since our active admins are reasonable (for which I am highly grateful. If only that would apply to a certain inactive admin).

So, in my two cents, no forums for new chat moderators or rollbacks. Silly, kind of pointless, causes a lot of drama, and causes many users to be sore. Give the rollback right to any good editor who ask for it, and have a discussion with only the admins and mods if deciding on a new chat mod. 21:05, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

As always, Jademing hit the nail on the head. 02:14, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how I feel. 02:44, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jade that summed it up perfectly. It seems the decisision is fairly unanimous. 02:49, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Forums for mods and rollback are a waste of time. Why waste two weeks on something that can be solved in literally less than ten minutes? Anyone arguing against this either just wants to feel important or has a bone to pick with the stick up their ass. For reasons unknown, some people, not gonna say who because it should be that obvious, don't like to leave decisions up to the people who were elected to oversee the running of this wiki. As if they think we'll purposely do something to irreversibly mess things up. That kind of self-important paranoia has no place here and has caused us to waste a lot of time over what are quite frankly trivial problems at best. I find it hilariously ironic that one of the guys who is against eliminating forums for trivial matters such as this is the same guy who completely ignored forum protocol and went ahead with a bull#$&% automation project without so much as a word to anyone. I'd even go as far as to say we shouldn't even have a poll for this change, but I'm getting ahead of myself, even though we don't really need one. 03:10, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd support not having a poll on this forum no matter what side of the coin I was on. I already feel like we poll more than necessary, as if it's just routine now. DP is a great guy, and I trust that asshole's judgement. Lest this forum become a debate of admin powers and influence, I'll move on to say that enough experienced users are unanimously disagreeing with this proposal, with DP's vote as the cherry on top, this is the perfect example of a forum that can be dropped and forgotten without a poll. 04:09, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we can close the forum then. 11:53, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yup. 13:00, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing that has not been adequately discussed. How do we deal with the so called "cronies" and how do we separate them from genuine complainers? Make no mistake that we'll find ourselves in a situation like that, sooner or later, and it will happen. If enough complaints are gathered, a poll/forum thread will be opened to deal with it regardless of the change in rules. What steps should we take, beforehand, in order to handle said situation when it arises? MasterDeva (talk) 13:04, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, if popular opinion on this wiki has changed and people want mods to be appointed, I'll concede to that. But I do think there needs to be an important stipulation to that: At least make a short forum to say that you're going to make ___ a mod before the appointment happens. Every time that we've argued about this and the person in question has already had the rights, it makes the whole situation significantly more unpleasant. And as Deva said, it's really difficult to tell the true complaints from BS ones, so there needs to be a way to at least see them, and I think a forum is the best way to see that. Look at the situation from the awful SHB appointment: DP said he was going to appoint SHB, people objected, but DP was afk and didn't see the complaints beforehand. (Again, SHB is a fine mod now, and we're cool.) At the very least, I think it would be important to have a short (3 day max) forum just to see if anyone has any genuine complaints, regardless of what happens in the forum, the final decision can be the admin's, but at least there should be an open discussion before we jump to appointments. I think that would be the most painless process for us. 19:51, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree, we don't need forums to appoint mods. It's not like we do that every week anyway, it happens once a year or so and if somebody has a problem with a certain mod, he can take a screenshot of the issue and either PM the admin that promoted him or make a forum about the fact that he can't trust him with the rights. That's what somebody would do if he had a problem with out current mods that have been appointed after discussion and vote anyway so I honestly don't see what's the issue here... 20:02, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Mods aren't elected, they're appointed. 20:27, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about a scenario where the rule has changed but some people are complaining about an admin's decision. We should have a procedure prepared to handle this. Staw-Hat Luffy said "make a forum about the fact that he can't trust him with the rights" any other ideas? JustSomeDude also proposed the use of forums to smooth things out. What I'm worried about is that even though we deal away with using forums to appoint moderators, we'll still have to go back to them regardless of the change. MasterDeva (talk) 21:44, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what happens to the rules but I just want to say this: When the last mods were appointed, there was a forum. If that forum wasn't opened, then the need for a new mod would not be known to everyone. Also, if that forum wasn't discussed, Hungry would be appointed mod and the problem wouldn't have been solved. Through discussion we came to the conclusion that Nova could cover the timezone that needed covering and Nova rightfully became a mod too.

About rollbacks, I don't think anyone opened a forum about it. It's just a matter of asking and being trusted. Mods should be appointed by mods, because only they know the work that needs to be done and who can do it. Bans should always come from a forum.

JSD, I respect your concern but I really think you're worrying about it too much. If you're concerned about public awareness, maybe make a link to the Listusers page on either the template on the recent activity page or the the main page. As for the possibility of false complaints, I am confident enough in my abilities to distinguish between baseless whining with legitimate concerns and problems. It's not that hard to ask around. Appointments aren't just made on the fly. Instead, actual thought and consideration goes into them, and a large part of the decision comes from the views of the people on chat, so it is very rare that an appointment would end up being a bad idea. However, should that come to pass, it is easily reconciled and the only consequence is some momentary discomfort, a slight hiccup in the grand scheme of things. 21:53, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a community messages update regarding any appointments. I do think it would be a bit smoother if that went up before the appointment was made official, but if I'm alone in that though then, whatever... 22:59, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

community message update seems like a good idea, so does anyone have anything against this or is this discussion over?-- 23:02, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Using the community messages for any appointment sounds like a wonderful idea. I wholeheartedly support this. 01:17, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Same here. 05:01, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

No objections from here either. MasterDeva (talk) 07:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yup agreed :)  08:44, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed too, let's close this. 12:49, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait for one, two days for any possible objection (which I hope there won't be any!) and if not, we can close this without any quarrels. 15:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. 17:31, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Two days had passed and there's absolutely no objections. Let's close it now. 16:28, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, let's. 16:34, January 29, 2014 (UTC)