Icon nowrite.svg
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Administration

Due to the confusions about our current moderator/administrator system, I'm hereby formally proposing an overhaul. Even though the post of administrator is clearly defined and is functioning fine, the post of moderator has brought along a lot of confusion. It worked just fine until the recent succession of moderators from the old breed to the new.

This confusion existed earlier but was never really brought to light earlier until just now when the new generation of moderators started appearing, and I feel that it now needs some severe looking into.

This confusion that I've mentioned repeatedly is about the different abilities that a moderators receives; chat moderator rights, rollback rights and patrol rights. Now, many times the post of moderator has been excused with chat moderator, and declining votes have been cast due to the one making the application not being active in chat. This shouldn't be the case as chat moderator is only one of the rights bestowed on a moderator. Personally I feel that chat moderator is a position that requires said person to know the ebb and flow of the Nukachat (yeah, I named it Nukachat, problem?) and understand how it works. The ability to rollback edits is something that requires a certain amount of understanding of how article editing works, and patrol rights even more so, so simply being trusted by the community isn't enough.

There are three kinds of users with additional powers in Fallout Wiki - moderators, admins (also called sysops) and bureaucrats.
  • Moderator powers are rolling back edits with just one click, banning users from chat and marking edits as patrolled.
  • Admin powers additionally include deleting pages, protecting pages and banning users from the wiki.
  • The only difference between administrators and bureaucrats is that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers.
For details, please see Help:User access levels.
— Administration Policy

This is what the old policy says. Now, this is the changes I think has to be made:

  • Administrator. This position is clearly defined and requires no modification.
  • Moderator. Now this is where things need to happen. My suggestion is to split this into three pieces:
  • Moderator (again). This will be with chat moderator rights, patrol rights and rollback rights. Same prerequisites as it used to have.
  • Chat moderator. This comes with just chat moderator rights. The prerequisites I'm not entirely sure of, but it has to have a time and activity limit of some kind. A vote of confidence should be necessary for thus position.
  • Patroller. Patrollers will have rollback and patrol rights, and the prerequisites will be lower than for the moderator position - possibly 250 edits. As for a vote being necessary, I don't consider it so, but a formal request must be made to the resident bureaucrat(s), in this case Clydey, who will bestow rights when he deems the user responsible enough.

The only think I'm not entirely sure how to handle is chat moderator prerequisites, as it's very hard to define. In this I'd like to get opinions from people who regulate chat in this.

So, to wrap this up, this is what I want with this:

  1. Your opinions on splitting the position of moderator into moderator, chat moderator and patroller.
  2. Your opinions on chat moderator prerequisites.

If this is met positively I will drive for this to be officiated as the new system. Thank you for your time, hugs, MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I think splitting the moderator position into chat and regular might not be a bad idea. There seem to be a lot of regular and responsible chat users that don't edit much who would make good chat moderators, but lack the edits required to apply. Conversely, there are editors here who wish to start the process to adminship who are primarily focused on editing, rather than chat, and may feel obliged to use chat just because they have attained moderator status. Quick question: Are the rights needed to delete blog comments universal with the delete rights admins have? Or can rights to delete things be split along different namespaces? If blog comment deletion rights can be granted separate of general deletion rights, how does anyone feel about adding those rights to the moderator position? The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 18:05, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I really would like to have more people monitoring the blogs, but unfortunately it's treated like a normal page deletion process and therefore requires administrator rights, so it's not doable. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
I've been thinking about this too. Kingclyde has in fact already approved of splitting the request in moderator, chatmoderator or rollback/patrol. Defining that last group as patroller is a good suggestion, I like it. SigmaDelta would for example not have had that hassle from other users for not being in chat if he'd just applied for 'patroller', not being really interested in the chatmod position. And perhaps we can adjust the 2 months prerequisite for patroller a bit, making it possible not having to wait four months after registering in total for a possible adminship request, like SD needs to do now. Note: personally I wouldn't have that much problems reinstating the free handing out of rollback/patroller again, an active and good editor is spotted easily enough. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 18:15, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Sigma got a little verbal opposition due to his motivation for not voting for ToC basically was a lie, but that's been cleared out now. As far as the waiting period I agree that it could definitely be cut down and/or removed for successful applications. Handing out "Patroller" positions could easily be handled by administrators, though, you're correct about that. I do feel that is has to at least resemble a formal application, not just a "Hai thar, I haz edits, can I be patroller? Kthanx." Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
I thought that was probably the case. Thanks for the clarification, Scar. One of the prerequisites for chat mod, in my opinion, if the position is re-instated, should be the lack of any kickbans for cause (lag kicks should not apply). There won't be much to determine a regular chat user/infrequent editor's viability for the position other than other chat user's recommendations and adminship's general appraisal of the applicant. There should have to be some hurdle for the applicant to clear. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 18:26, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A time period of at least 2 months active in chat should be sufficient, in my opinion. Otherwise, yes, I agree with those prerequisites. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

Good idea. I always wondered why did the chat moderators needed to contribute when some contributors are daily on chat (and certainly haven't been banned). MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 18:49, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

May I also suggest the possibility of instating a forum moderator position? We have been gaining an influx of new users and Anons lately to make up for community that has split off from us. Because of this, we have many people who come here just to take advantage of the disorder and slight chaos just to find the many debates and simple comments here and degrade them to the point of being nothing but harmful to those users that simply wish to express their ideas without fear of being tormented. It would be beneficial towards this wiki to protect our future assets when this is already such a trying time for us. Dragon.jpg Skål! 18:59, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea Leon, however, being a bureaucrat on another wiki, I am unaware of just the single power of blog post deletion.--Bunny2.jpgBubble.png 19:01, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
As I said earlier in this forum, comment deletion is the same as page deletion, and there's no way to separate these to my knowledge. So even though this is a good idea, it's not doable. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Might as well contribute to this conversation. People who want only chat powers shouldn't be limited by edits, so I feel any trusted chat regular should be able to apply. As for rollback and patrol rights, the current system seems fine, though the edit count should be lowered if only applying for the two. (250-400 edits would be fair)CaesarLegionSymbol.png Pony of the East CaesarLegionSymbol.png 19:05, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't doable as a single power. Which is why we need someone who can prove themselves to do such a job before we put them in that position. All I'm asking is for a few people to dedicate themselves as moderators specifically for the forums/blogs. Dragon.jpg Skål! 19:06, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, we could accomplish this one of two ways, were it decided necessary:

  • Ask Wikia to change the deletion rights so they are separate per namespace (not gonna happen).
  • Give mods the delete power and admonish them to only use them on blog comments. Still not a good solution.

I guess it's best to just wait until there's a few more admin worthy applicants. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:22, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Second alternative doesn't work either, since deletion rights comes with administrator rights. It's a part of adminship. So we're just going to have to wait for more good admin applicants. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

Forgive me if I'm going over familiar territory. Given the new name, new brand, new day for this wiki, I think we should be siezing what is the one possible advantage the "split" has given us - a clean slate - I think we should be considering all policies, prodceedures, rules, etc.
Splitting the moderator roles seems to be inevitable. Perhaps they werent a perfect match to start with - it seemed logial at the time to combine the two "trusted user" privelidges, now in the bright of day, it's causing more issues than it hoped to solve.
In regards to the admin requirement rules, my immediate suggestion is to add the word "failed" before the word "request" in regards to the time limit (so a moderator could go to admin almost immediately if they meet the edit requirement, only if you lose a vote do you have to wait before calling one again); and potentially look at the Rollback/patrol rights group, or full moderator as being a pre requisite for admin.
Moderating the news blogs needs a solution - I'm trying to work out how to get my edits up to admin level to solve it, but is there another solution? Is it possible to edit these "Pages" at all?
In any case, I don't think we can go to the system prior to this (Rollback rights handed out as long as the hander thought you were okay).
In regards to chat I think it is only right and proper that those who are given this right have to be active in chat before this is handed out... Are there any metrics on the wiki covering chat usage?Agent c 20:28, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

There are no metrics covering wiki chat usage at all, so I want to instate a one or two month limit of chat presence for chatmod application. I agree on the "failed attempt" point you have, and as for my position of rollback, that's been stated above. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I see I may have brought to light changes that need to be made. Scar's proposed policy here is terrific and I think only needs minor refinement. -ΣΔLet's talk! 21:42, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of splitting the moderator position. I would like to take on the role of being able to make sure edits have been patrolled since this is something I sometimes do. Due to fewer admins on the wiki as well currently, do you think it would be a good idea to speed out the time in which you can apply for a position to boost numbers? The Australian Kiwi 21:58, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Here are my proposed requirements:

  • For moderator (chat mod and rollback with patrol): 500+ edits in article/file/category namespace, 2 months of being continuously active, no other moderator or admin requests in the past 2 months. (Very much like status quo)
  • For chat mod (chat mod rights only): 50+ edits in article/file/category namespace (for the sake of knowing at least something about the wiki's facilities, tools, and Fallout content to help newer users in chat), active and respectful in chat based upon community's decision.
  • For rollback/patrol: 300+ edits in article/file/category namespace, continuously active for 1 month.
Just my thoughts on this, do comment! -ΣΔLet's talk! 22:31, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

To the chatmoderator prerequisites I'd like to add in talkpage mainspace edits. That should count for someone who's been continuously active in the community, and not necessarily the Wiki.

Also I'd to lower the "Patroller" to 250 edits, but I guess that's just personal preference. But yes, that's some rather good reiteration/summarisation. As for what requires a vote I'd say that (as I mentioned earlier) both positions that hold any kind of banhammer, i.e. the moderator and chatmoderator posts, should be a community vote, whereas Patroller positions could be handed out by either the bureaucrats and/or administrators. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

Patroller should be at 250 as Scar has suggested, as for chat mod, the person should not only meet the above requirements but be active in chat as well. I would define the 50 edits as being truly useful edits. Not adding periods or spaces and whatnot. We need to make sure said person is truly reliable. There would be no sense in adding chat mods when they don't chat. Also I propose keeping the number of chat mods low. If everyone was a chat mod, it would be chaos. We don't need anymore prankster who ban the entire chat room and leave.--Kingclyde 23:47, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Ensuring that they're trusted is fairly easy, as the community gets to vote them through. I've also been thinking of an endorsement system where a potential candidate for chatmoderator has to be endorsed by at least an admin before he or she can apply for the position. That would stop the fora getting flooded by every single person who meets the requirements making an application. This would also enable the administrator team to keep the amount of chat moderators at a pleasurable level. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
^ I like this idea very much. Keeps the common rabble out. Dragon.jpg Skål! 23:53, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
That solves the "Are you active in chat" problem quite nicely.Agent c 23:54, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
*Claps* Endorsement will be great as a lot will want the position off the bat. I will now start the bid for a BearEndorsement for 100 american dollars.;)--SneeringImperialist2.pngBunny2.jpg 23:56, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, those are just my ideas. Clyde and and the administration can figure out the details. I just wanted to share my ideals. -ΣΔLet's talk! 23:57, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Chat Mods: 100 reputable edits while also being recognized as one who is constantly avalailable and of the right mind to keep watch over chat at a time of need.Patroller: 250 edits reputable edits with an endorsement from a current Admin and at least 1 achievment under their belt.

Moderator: 500 reputable edits with an endorsement from a current Admin. Must have at least 5 achievments under their belt. Must show a capacity to get along with other contributers. How about this? Seems reasonable to me. Dragon.jpg Skål! 00:05, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

You guys need some "Achievement got" icons for that, like you did with those for bans...Agent c 00:06, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
As already discussed, Leon, that edit count is a bit too steep for some very trusted users in chat. 50 should be enough.
As far as Patroller goes, that should just be a formal application to the ones who can give out patroller rights, namely either b'crats only or both them and admins. As for both chatmod and mod, they need community votes. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Seems to me that 100 edits is asking too little. Anybody can come up with 50 half-hearted edits. Also seems to me that we should be expecting more from the contributers here who feel as if they could make the best out of a little extra power. Dragon.jpg Skål! 00:14, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
True, I'll give you that. The edits of a chatmod is basically to know that the mod has an understanding of how the wiki works, not to prove that they can handle advanced editing tools. As for the trust that comes from the endorsment and community vote. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Compromise - 75 good edits? -ΣΔLet's talk! 00:20, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
Give me 75 edits, where they can be talkpage edits, and I'm in. MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
I understand where you're coming from. I guess I can agree with what has been shown to me so far. Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:13, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
We need people to have main namespace edits, in case newer users need help with in-game material or wiki editing related material (as previously mentioned). Talk page edits do not provide that. What's the point of having chat mods if they can't help out people when needed? -ΣΔLet's talk! 02:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
I do see where you're coming from, but as a chat moderator you're not there to provide help, you're to regulate chat, even if we're all utterly helpful little buggers in chat. This edit count is merely to ensure that they have a rudimentary understanding of the wiki. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Since we don't chat much, we think it logical to separate Chat moderators from other types. That way they will leave the rest of the Wiki alone. Just our 4 cents worth, (2 cents each).DarthOrc 07:50, January 16, 2012 (UTC)DarthOrc

Everyone is making things harder than they should be. Apply for chat moderator if you want to moderate chat, apply for rollback if you want rollback. Apply for moderator if you want both, or admin if you think you have what it takes.

Bureaucrats, on the other hand, shouldn't have a public vote. I think that we should only have one Bureaucrat at a time, and when that Bureaucrat decides to leave they should pass on the rights to the user who they think is the most trustworthy. After all, you really only need one Bureaucrat at a time. 07:58, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying things is basically what I'm doing, Rob. We're splitting up moderator so that you actually can apply to just chatmod or just rollback/patrol. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Oh. Sorry, Al. I didn't read the whole forum, I just skimmed through. Well, for what it's worth, I support that decision. 09:53, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
I Think we need a second b/c; 1) so there is a power balance that can address possible possible power abuse (not that I believe KingClyde has done this, or is likely to do so) and 2) to help ensure that nomal operations can continue should he find himself in a situation where accessing the wiki is impossible or inconvenient (holiday/vacatation, arrest, sickness, etc). Agent c 15:07, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Agent c, it makes way more sense to have 2 rather than one. Although bureaucrats cannot revoke each others' powers. -ΣΔLet's talk! 15:13, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
See, that's the thing I worry about. Only Wikia can revoke a Bcrat's power, so once you have one you have one forever. That's why I've always considered having multiple Bcrats to be an issue. Although, this wiki has proven that having 3 Bcrats at once can work, even if it was slightly unnecessary. 22:47, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here. I was thinking that on the way to becoming an admin, one should go through being a moderator first. There's a lot of upside to this, because once a person reaches admin status after being a mod, they'll be use to the amount of power. When I became an admin, I was given a lot of power right away, since we didn't have mods back then. It's a bit nerve wrecking at first since you're not used to it. Being a mod first will allow the user to settle in first with the powers of being an admin, and also to get used to the community. I'm not as active as I'd like to be, and I also don't like how the community feels far away from me, and I wouldn't want that to happen to someone else that is applying for becoming an admin. It helps a lot when you know the community and when the community knows you as well. TrailerParkApe Hellions of Earth 07:50, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

You have a fair point. To add on that, the moderator position was made for a reason, but it was immediately obsolete considering you could just make 500 more mainspace edits (which doesn't take that long if you consider Jspoel can do 100 edits a day) and go straight to admin. If we get users to go through being a mod first, it will actually mean that mods serve a purpose in the system rather than being something that you can skip if you wanted to be an admin. 08:25, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the little add on there. That was basically what I was trying to say but you just said it better than I did. One should be a mod first, then can apply to become an admin. It doesn't make much sense to skip the moderator position. TrailerParkApe Hellions of Earth 08:34, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
I'm in full support of this. I'll add it into the "manifest" that I'll pitch to Clyde. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

( Wait. When first needing to apply for moderator you have to wait 2 months, then another 2 months to apply for admin. That would be four months in total and personally I want to possibility to apply for admin after 3 months membership remained. So I don't agree with that. I think a patroller should also be able to apply for adminship. He's the most used to editing and will also be ready (like a moderator) to take on adminship powers. I'm in favor of requesting patrol rights after a month, so that leaves the opportunity for a patroller to apply for adminship after 3 months membership. I do believe though that the patroller prerequisite for applying for admin wouldn't be such a bad idea.

I think these should about be the requirements.

  • Moderator: as it is now.
  • Chatmod: 2 months membership; 100 mainspace edits. Really, 50 is too easy.
  • Patroller: 1 months membership; 250/300 mainspace edits. Someone interested in patrol/admin rights will be more of an editor anyway, so reaching 300 edits in a month is not that hard.

More or less SD's suggestion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:32, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Jspoel, the plan was to only have to wait 1 month after a successful moderator request to apply for admin strike that, you don't even have a set time to wait, so that makes the 3 month plan feasible.

I'm writing the manifest now, and as it looks chat moderators need 100 edits, where 50 of them have to be mainspace edits. For a community minded person, who's utterly dedicated to the community, even a 100 edits can be a tall number. Also, bear in mind that said person needs to be endorsed by an admin and pass a community vote, so it still won't be easy to become chat moderator. Patroller will be 250. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

  • Oh, I missed that set time part. Looks ok to me then.

Edit: Though I still think a patroller should be able to apply for adminship too and not first needing to apply for moderator. That will stretch things too much. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:52, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A prerequisite for administrator should be that you've held at least one of the aforementioned positions before. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.