Forum:Establishing RfCM

Forums: Index → War Room → Establishing RfCM

hi

I was originally going to propose this instead of proposing a noticeboard, but since the noticeboard is really just for community/encyclopedia-related issues, I decided to propose for an actual RfCM.

Basically, we currently have no actual system on who gets chat mod. And since we operate via community consensus, it would only make sense to allow the chat community to have a vote for chat mods if a need for a new chat mod rises. The format for nominating users for chat mod would basically look like the voting process for the Improvement Drive (unless, of course, we can find a better format/system that would be way more efficient).

Discussion

Support - as nominator. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 07:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support We really need something like this, I can't believe we haven't for a while. Anyway, per nom. Our consensus needs to be followed on chat mods. Random admins come up to a "worthy" or deserved user and asks him. That doesn't follow consensus. --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  07:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment We should have it's structure simiilar to the Rfa's. --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  07:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I chose ID because it's basically the same as RfA except we don't need to create a separate page for each individual user. This way, we could just use sections and it would be much easier since the discussion for nominating chat mods would much much shorter than a discussion for adminship. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 07:39, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this: Call_of_Duty_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Archive_2 --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  07:44, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Basically. Except it would be archived more often so it doesn't get to 30+ sections. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 07:49, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment For RfCM, would there be a limit, similiar to how Blog Patrol is. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}10:38, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there could be, or we could just oppose any nominations with the reason "enough mods at the moment". Personally, I'm not a fan of locking nominations with the reason of there not being a need for them. We did the same thing with the RfA page - and it was re-opened out of protest by a few users due to there being a need for a new admin because of a vandal attack happening when no admins were around. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 10:54, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

With "enough mods at the moment", since we got rid of the "enough admins at the moment" make this reason null? Argorrath _{おしゃべり}11:03, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I would say that's up for debate in a chat mod nomination. They aren't the same tools. New chat mods (not just one mod) should only be needed when there is a time in which the chat doesn't have a moderator. The reason there's a difference is because adminship is also for maintenance tasks, while chat mod is (obviously) just for moderation. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 11:10, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea. Also, would this be a correct nominations format? --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 10:50, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

With or without the sections outlining "Support" or "Oppose", yes. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 10:54, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Just one thing, do chatmods keeps their rights under a Grandfather's Clause or do they all have to reapply? Smuff^{[citation provided]} 10:56, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I would say the former. --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 10:59, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose Hasn't this idea been raised before? I'm certain that the reason we choose not to have a RfCM was that it was at admins digression who got chat mod rather then community. Or something similar.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

12:19, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Also another issue, while admins can be on at any time really, there is a degree of how many chat mods we can have. As it stands chat gets enough admins and chat mods in chat there's rarely a point when there isn't one. So putting in a RfCM now seems somewhat redundant as most Chat Mods have covered every area we need covered. While saying "We have too many X" may be unfair on the applicant, in this case it's rather true, especially now it's back to school and traffic has dropped down again.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

12:26, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Back then we had enough chat mods. Now, normally at night time, or in the mornings, there are no chat mods. We need to reinforce more, thus it is time for people to choose when they want to via nomination. It makes it easier to choose, and it also makes chat mods more active late at night, activity would be a theme for being a chat mod. --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  18:16, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

May I ask what's your morning or nighttime? --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 18:21, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

At the night shift there is about 4-5 mods at that time, problems that occur are dealt with and very rarely are no mods in at that time.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}18:22, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

We had enough back then, we have more than enough now. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 22:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

We've actually run a little short lately, for example, we were modless for about 45 minutes to an hour last night. DarkMetroid567^okay 00:23, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was given chat moderator rights temporarily two days ago to watch chat while KATANAGOD needed to block and ban some accounts, as he was the only mod on at the time. DarkMetroid567^okay 00:25, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support-A much more organised idea that would actually let the community have a say in it. Pierogi^Talk 14:15, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Pointless, we have admins who are trusted enough to make the right people chatmods. It's not like chatmod flags are ever given to people who are unknown within the community. Chatmods are also under constant monitoring considering every action they do is seen by everyone else (well maybe not that big-brother-ish, but if they do something wrong, it's going to be picked up on pronto) so if there is any problem it's always addressed quickly. We also barely ever give people chatmod flags... and especially when we have enough chat moderators it seems a bit too irrelevant to have RfCM now.

If we are to do this though we need to make it so requests cannot be submitted when there are enough chat moderators. And considering we already have enough, if we do decide to make RfCM we'd need to lock it pretty much immediately. Would we do it in the same style as RfA too?      16:27, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And we don't have users that should have a say in who gets chat mod or who doesn't? -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:46, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

By this logic the Crats are trusted to be crats should be able to make admins when the need arises without consensus. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 19:38, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Support The community should have a choice as who gets to be made a chat mod. Qw3rty! (talk) 18:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per CoD4, also the admins are picked and choosen to be admin sby the community. They are to be proven people who are trusted enough to decide on the right person a chatmod.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}18:36, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

If the community can pick who gets to be a admin, they should have the right to nominate/vote for chat mod. Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  18:51, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

It's up to the admins who gets Blog Patrol, Custodian and Rollback, I don't see why we can't trust their judgement for Chat mods. Also the only people who can effectivally vote for chat mods are people who regulate chat, this will most likely lead to very bias votes.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:42, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Blog Patrol, Custodian, and Rollback are just for anti-vandalism/maintenance purposes. Chat mod is just for moderation. Biased opinions can also come from administrators. The only thing the admin flag gives is a set of tools and the responsibility to use them. There is no reason admins are better at decisions compared to normal users. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:46, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

But users will only be voting for powers in one location, so there's very little a user can vote for. An admin is looked at for behaviour, activity and community input, so any user can vote for an admin regardless of how active they are, however for a chat mod all that can be looked at is if said user is in chat and has a strip of good behaviour, and only chat members can effectivally vote as no one outside of chat can vouch for how they behave, afterall a user that is mainly active in chat and not on wiki could be nominated.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

23:55, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can easily just strike out votes that have no valid reasoning behind them. But I still don't see why who gets chat mod is an admin-only decision when it effects the entire chat. With the way we do it now, normal users also have no authority to bring up concerns towards the admin decision (which isn't really even a complete admin decision - it just depends on who is online at the time). -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 01:56, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

"normal users also have no authority to bring up concerns", I've counted numerous times where an un-desirable chat mod has been taken to an admin. Normal users already have a voice in chatmods, but you make it sound like they are completely shunned in the process. It's not the admins, it's the users who don't bring issues up. I believe this is a main reason why we instated COD:BOX. The admins don't just give the power out willy-nilly to people whom they like only by themselves. If you haven't noticed, all people that are promoted to be mods have been in chat a couple months, are already liked by the chat as a whole (ahem, there's your community) and know the chat rules very well. It's not like we're giving them out to people we can't trust. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 20:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Support — I've always wanted this tbh. Just never asked for it! YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  20:24, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose; As with having more than enough Chat Mods at the moment, the administrative team is capable enough to handle who gets Chat mod powers. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 22:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And regular users aren't? Just because some users are not the same doesn't mean they can't have an open opinion on something that effects them. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 01:56, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't need the entire community to decide who gets to be a chat mod. If somebody has a problem with somebody becoming a mod, it's as simple as telling an admin about the issue. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 02:07, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Comment.-If this passes (not saying it will), if the "Too much chat mods" excuse is valid, are we closing nominations until there's space on the CM team, like, something similar to Blog Patrol?.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}22:10, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that "Too many chat mods" is a very valid reason, because unlike Administrators, we only need a certain amount of mods to keep chat nice and friendly. And yes, it would probably work similar to Blog Patrol. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 22:26, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can't have a certain # of admins to have the wiki nice and friendly. If there can be an, in theory, infinite number of admins why put a limit on chatmods or any other useright? If they're trusted and dedicated users, according to the "limitless admin policy" (as I'll call it), the more admins there are the less work there is for other admins. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 19:52, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - It just doesn't seem like a necessary implementation considering the current system works fine and without complaint. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 22:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I myself have been complaining about this for a while. :P As for the 'system' working - there is no 'system' at all. Who gets chat mod relies on whatever admins are online at the time. As I've also said above - there is no reason admins have better decisions/less biased opinions than normal users when it comes to discussions/nominations. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:49, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Azuris isn't the only one who has complained either. DarkMetroid567^okay 00:17, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above, normal users already have no less voice than admins. If there is a problem with a mod, users can bring it up to an admin or COD:BOX. But we don't need to go through the process of nominating them and vote them in for such simple tools. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 20:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support - While I am somewhat in support of the idea, I'm wondering how it would work compared to Requests for Adminship and Improvement Drive nominations. DarkMetroid567^okay 00:17, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

It would be like the early RFAs, see RFA archives 1- 3 --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  01:24, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Damac. Redskin-26 01:33, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

People should vote on something as major as chat mod. Everyone has a bias, and a ego. Everyone has a different opinion, making voting easier. Choosing a mod should be under voting, not choosing by one person. --Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly  04:42, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Except for the fact that being a chat mod is not a very major thing. You get two extra buttons in a part of the wiki that usually doesn't have much to do with the functionality of the articles. Choosing a new mod (if even needed) is not a community decision. When an admin feels that there needs to be another mod in chat, they promote a user whom the chat as a whole likes and respects; and if the mod does something unacceptable, somebody brings the issue up to an admin or COD:BOX. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 05:53, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - More trouble than its worth. Per Callofduty4. --KλT 07:27, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - per Smilular and COD4. For me, CM and BP are not important parts of the wiki much, the users only gained some privileges to keep the wiki better, but as they are not the main part like custodians which do control images. Also, I see a bit pointless on making a whole system on RFs in small parts of the wiki as we normally already get control of it everyday.   ıllıllı TSC ıllıllı 07:40, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Comment If where to pass (not saying it will), then should Custodians, Blog Patrol, and Rollback have "Request for X" and have the community vote instead as well as it "should follow COD:CON."Argorrath _{おしゃべり}11:45, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As stated above, Chat Mod isn't a huge thing, and admins haven't made a habit of palming it off to randoms. If anything, becoming a chat mod is a matter of an admin delegating a small duty to a responsible user. Making a formal process to become a CM risks turning a simple, practical task to a bureaucratic mess. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 14:48, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cod4 and Scottie. Joe Copp 15:15, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie.

Bon-Bon Yes, it's JPanzerj. ^{<3 my Berry}

17:52, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Is it really worth it? Being a chat mod isn't exactly a big thing, and making it into a formal decision is just going to complicate things. I agree with Scotty on this, just leave it to the admins to choose responsible users when they deem it necessary for a chat mod. --Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 06:13, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support - On one hand, I am kinda surprised that this never happened. On the other hand, it does seem like a bit of trouble. Still, it would be interesting to see how this turns out, if it does at all. I.W. F.T.W. _(talk)02:19, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose -- Too much unneeded bureaucracy. Becoming a chat mod isn't something as major as becoming an admin or a 'crat -- it's just a couple of tools used to keep the chat clean. It's not like it's affecting the wiki as a whole. Sgt. S.S. (talk) 10:06, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Administrator rights are also just "a couple of tools used to keep" the Wiki clean. DarkMetroid567^okay 19:33, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Except their tools are directly linked to the wiki. Chat and chat bans don't usually affect the functionality of articles. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 20:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly the best analogy to use though. DarkMetroid567^okay 03:48, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well apparently Chat and IRC are very much part of the wiki, it was in a forum but I cbf to find it because the bots jumbled them up. Well anyways, according to said forum, actions on IRC and Chat are the same as action on wiki and that these are part of the wiki itself. Any changes in the wiki are to be decided by consensus. Chat Mods are changes to the wiki. So therefore Chat Mods must be determined by consensus. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 20:01, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I have always had a strong stance on this one, and I always believed that we should have RfCM. Most of the opposes are based on the fact that we currently have enough Chat Mods. Alright, one could argue we have enough admins too, lets shut down RfA's! No, I don't think that's how it works. To the "chat mod isn't as big of a thing" argument, well, it is for some users. Special:Chat is a gathering place of the community, where users old and new reside, and chatmods are there to keep order in a place that can quite easily result in some pretty serious policy breaches. So, yes, it is quite a big thing in a very frequented area of the wiki. To the "admins are doing just fine in choosing users" argument, I agree, but why not let the whole community participate in choosing who runs a community-focused place? In my mind, using this argument would also warrant only bureaucrats choosing admins. Basically, I like this idea, and I find the counter-arguments redundant and baseless. Off-topic, I find this system pretty messy D: PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 18:22, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The opposes are contradicting in themselves, and they also affect IRC, because chat mods apparently have +ov in there, so it is essentially a wiki wide choice. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 20:02, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on how the opposes are "contradicting in themselves" because I don't see how. Redskin-26 20:04, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

They're in comments above. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 20:24, August 11, 2012 (UTC)