Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Content Moderator Vote
 
Gametitle-Wiki.png
Gametitle-Wiki.png


Ok, so this has sat on the discussion boards doing nothing for a while. There is certainly support for content moderators on the forum, along side some concerns and questions as to if we need it. Rather than have it linger with people asking when we are going to do it, lets decide if we are going to move with Content Moderation.

This will be a 2 part vote, as the requirements of Admin and discussion moderators also need to be considered.

Proposal

Content Moderator

Content Moderators are responsible for handling the wiki's article content, plus protecting articles from vandalism where required. Any other issues (blocks, edit wars, etc.) will remain the sole responsibility of Sysops.

Requirements for Content Moderator

  • You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • Does not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.

Addition to Discussions Moderator requirements

  • Does not currently hold Content Moderator rights.

Addendum to Admin

  • You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).

Why the refusal for Content/Discussions moderators to run for the other right set?

Simple: If you want to hold both sets of rights, become an admin. The combined rights essentially give all that Admin holds (less Mediawiki spaces). If I were to define the three rights:

  • Content Moderator is essentially a role to "get on with things."
  • Discussions Moderators are to manage the community (in discussions)
  • Admins are those people who get on and do the real paperwork, get their hands dirty in the articles and handle the whole community.

You want to do everything? Be accountable for the responsibility and seek the right, single set of tools, no half measures.

Gunny also asked the question of: What are we trying to solve with this? To put it simply, we have people who would like to do more, but not have the community responsibility. Moving photos and audio, helping to prevent vandalism until an admin can swoop in and deal with the offending account, being able to physically move articles without leaving junk redirects. These are all small things that people can be trusted to do, without having to handle to community. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:35, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Update: The act of deleting an article

I was asked by Paladin117 if Content Moderators should delete articles. I would class this as something that is done with community consensus and as such the action remain with Admins and Bureaucrats. This also extends to anything that requires community input. If you need to do something to improve an article, then that falls to Content Mod and above, anything else remains with the sys-ops. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 00:03, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Vote

Poll finished on 10:35 pm November 18, 2017 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Vote 1

Should we have Content Moderators and accept the proposal above (including the addition to Discussions Moderator requirements?)

Yes

  1. Yes Dragão Carmesim Howdy! 22:42, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes User:JBour53
  3. Yes |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 22:45, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Hauganz (talk)
  5. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 23:07, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes Pedro Washington (talk) 00:49, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes StormRider71 (talk) 02:51, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes I have previously elaborated on my stance here. - FDekker talk
  9. Yes Couldn't hurt to at least test it first. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 23:58, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Yes Should help commitment/motivation to the wiki, with less responsibility then an admin. Appearantly there's a need for it. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 22:30, November 14, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:56, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes Although new admins would be the best solution, if people don't feel confident enough, this is a great way to build that confidence. People will ease in naturally from here. Besides there is plenty of heavy lifting that voted in Content moderators can do, that is part of just getting on with article maintenance. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 04:04, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

No

  1. No--Overseer X (talk) 00:55, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  2. No I still do not see a problem serious enough to create an entire new class of rights holders to accommodate a few users who want the tools but not the responsibilities of admins. This entire process of discussion resulted my conclusion that we need more admins, not admin-lites.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 16:21, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  3. No I concur with Gunny. Agent c (talk) 19:42, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  4. No I'm still very very wary of giving patrollers content moderation rights. My stance may change in the future, but for now I haven't seen a demonstrable need for this push to happen. ---bleep196- (talk) 02:28, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Vote 2

Should we change the requirements for administrators per the above if we agree to Content Moderators?

Yes

  1. Yes Changing the rights for Admin is a must. Otherwise Admin and ContMod will be effectively the same rank. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 22:46, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:57, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 23:07, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Pedro Washington (talk) 00:49, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Though I kinda feel like is should be 1500 edits instead of 2000. I'd like to be an admin, and I don't mind the responsibility, but at the same time, I'm not able to be on here every single day. When I am, I'm usually looking for the larger mistakes, incorrect info or vandals vs the missed comma or double spacing. It'd take me another 2 years to get to 2000 at that rate. Lol StormRider71 (talk) 02:59, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes If CM is a "stepping stone" to becoming Admin, then the requirements should reflect this. - FDekker talk
  7. Yes We have always needed to officially raise this limit. I have always held a personal minimum of double what we officially required so this is in line with that. That being said, we need more admins. But the admins we need are the ones that have this kind of experience.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 16:21, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes Looks like I won't try to get this for a few years at my rate, but it's a good idea to raise the limit to make sure the person trying to get admin really knows what they are doing. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 23:59, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Yes I think 2000 still is too low to reflect general expectations (would say 3000-4000), but it's better than what we already have. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 14:07, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Yes Don't make it more than 2000. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 22:30, November 14, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes I think we're well past the days where 1000 edits is sufficient for Admin applications. ---bleep196- (talk) 02:29, November 16, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes I thin this makes sense and with the number of yeses here, maybe we should consider this result as a stand alone? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 04:04, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

No

  1. No Edits is not enough. There should be some other engagement requirement. Agent c (talk) 19:39, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Dragão Carmesim Howdy! 22:42, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral--Overseer X (talk) 00:56, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Result

So ordered. Agent c (talk) 22:54, November 22, 2017 (UTC)

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