RationalWiki talk:Moderators

If you have an issue you want to bring to a moderator's attention, questions about the moderators, or anything else even vaguely moderator-related, please go to the moderator noticeboard.

different

I'll just point out that this page which used to be transcluded (in essence) to ATIM is now different. I'm would recommend updating it here and then transcluding into the ATIM page. sterile^talk 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever, EVER tell a moderator what to do. You are only here at our EXCLUSIVE SAY SO. Ace^Moderator 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only help those who can't help themselves.... sterile^talk 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You just don't know when to shut-up. Ace^Moderator 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you only had a brain.... sterile^talk 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep it in a jar. Ace^Moderator 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

At least you can use a small one. Luvs, sterile^talk 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mod elections

Looked around, couldn't find the answer to this question. What are the qualifications to be a moderator, in terms of length of time as a member, number of posts, etc., or are there none? Thanks. Refugee^{talk page} 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There are none. Humorless fascist^sociopath 17:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ty. hmmm. Shouldn't there be though? There are requirements to vote, but not to actually be a mod? What are your thoughts on this? Refugee^{talk page} 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Humorless fascist^sociopath 18:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty good at reading body language, but sometimes not so good at deciphering the intent behind emoticons. I'd guess this indicates that you don't really care. Refugee^{talk page} 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Humorless fascist^sociopath 19:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Use your words Ty! lol. :p Refugee^{talk page} 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed before but never sorted out. In principal, the voting requirements should probably also apply to candidates, but this has never been added to mod/election guidelines, so no restriction applies. There's always one or two joke/sock/troll candidates, but as they barely garner any votes, no harm is done. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod Elections

So apparently we're nominating moderators at the moment. I can't find the link. I would like to nominate myself, as an abolitionist candidate. MarcusCicero (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I nominate MC for being permabanned.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Vote Cicero, For a Stranger, wordier, worthless....er future! --^Mikal_lakiM 17:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously though, when are the nominations happening? Or are the moderators de facto abandoned? (I suspect they were specifically created in order to get rid of me) Or even worse, have the current caste of moderators done away with elections altogether? Have they installed a thousand year reich? Who here will stand up to them all their 'representatives' to account? MarcusCicero (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt all will be revealed when the next minutes of the RW foundation are published. I see that meetings are held at least quarterly but the last ones date from June 2012. Still, they are more up to date than the financial reports.--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The foundation is nothing to do with the moderators. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. This website is run like the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the Supreme leader, 'Ayatollah' Toulouse, who issues decree's and more or less sets policy. Then he has his goons who he allows to run for moderator. I guarantee you they'll discover some technicality to disallow me from running. The list will need to be 'vetted' for 'suspicious persons'. Then, a sham election takes place (And it is always sure that the Ayatollah's candidates wins, regardless of the votes) The assertion that the foundation has nothing to do with the moderators is absurd. There is a cabal at the heart of this site, and only the election of a revolutionary liberator can expose that cabal for what it is. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So... if only the vetted candidates of the supreme whatever are allowed to run in the first place, why do we need to rig the actual election itself to ignore the votes? and DAMMIT, i knew we couldn't trust peter and knight! --^Mikal_lakiM 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Mikal, Mikal—what made you think you could run Russia if you don't know the first thing about the hows and whys of election rigging? Peter ^mqzp 23:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Moderators for life?

The current crop of moderators have been around since December 2012 (is that right)? I think we should either ditch the concept or have a new election. Otherwise we have some users wandering around with rights that there is no current community consensus that they should have. I'm aware there are no term limits or anything, but given the fact that the position has faded into obscurity let's either reboot or can it. Tielec01 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In the past i supported essentially making Moderators more like crats as an attempt to make them be more relevant, but I can't see a new election working (just look how well our elections for the people who run the organization that owns the site went). Honestly we should just remove the position, it was never clearly defined (and attempts to do so we're met with hostility) or useful and It isn't like we'd notice the change. --Miekal 04:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that there were moments where having moderators was useful, once upon a time, like policing voting, de-escalating HCMs and reminding users of community standards. Obviously it's been a long time since a moderator has done anything with their moderator hat on, most probably because they probably don't feel particularly enfranchised (given the last election was so long ago). Tend to agree that it's probably best to dump the position, but a part of me feels like this is a move backwards. Tielec01 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if we had more frequent elections, the elections would work better. (Not least because then people would remember how to wiki-magic them, the notices, etc. into existence.) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In the idealistic utopia world you live in frequent elections may work, but here n the real world they just make people care less. Also, how more often than half-years can we go?--Miekal 13:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The big risk from that perspective is reaching a state where essential site functions are no longer maintained at all. Then when things do go wrong you can't fix them for continuity. I don't think moderators are the biggest risk there. Serious tech maintenance all falls on poor David Gerard now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

By "more frequent" I meant "at all". FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 14:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody felt like doing the election even when brought up, forcing it on the electorate isn't going to improve the situation, and it is still a poorly defined position that has no effective authority to act. We haven't had a major May 2011 HCM and the person i most expected a major HCM to break out over isn't on wiki anymore. Ikan brings up the point we do need to find more people whyo we can trust to help maintain the curtain side of RW though. --Miekal 14:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody feel like doing an election now? (Has it changed?) ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What gain would there be in electing 7 new people to a position with no clear powers? We should hold a vote on whether we keep the mods at all honestly, and then if the mob says yes, actually go about getting new ones. --Miekal 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Do we? Are there any reasons we need ueber syops? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"We have some users wandering around with rights that there is no current community consensus that they should have." This is a non-problem, or at best a theoretical problem only. The abilities a moderator has beyond a sysop are very slim and very rarely used (e.g. locking a page at moderator level or deleting an edit swo only another mod can view it), and it's been a long time since I've seen anyone pulling their "rank" as moderator to enforce any decision or take control of any situation. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've used my moderator powers three times. Each time it was because a lower level (ie sysop) wouldn't have solved the problem. For instance, a page was being constantly recreated by a sysop. How would a non-moderator have solved this? just because moderators aren't constantly running around fixing things doesn't mean they are unnecessary, although I'll concede that seven mods is probably too many. Bicycle^wheel 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the current moderators. I only nominated myself to make sure we had enough candidates to fill all the positions. Personally, I am comfortable seeing the number of mods reduced. TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that we agreed to let this issue slide because moderators were not using their powers. This has changed recently I've seen editors claiming that they are 'putting a moderator hat on'. Why not just remove this position completely? Our moderators were elected long ago largely by a userbase that probably no longer exists. They have no franchise and any controversial action they take, seeing as they are unsanctioned by the community, will likely cause more issues than it resolves. Tielec01 (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The very mild use of that hat cape does not bother me, and indeed recent examples seem to have been moderately constructive, but on principle (i.e. moderators in fact representing a ~current electorate, that being the point of their election in the first place), I'm seriously considering "formally" proposing an new election, which I expect would retain some/many current mods if by some dark magick people were to actually decide to have an election. That said it'd be a shitshow because RW, I realize. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, as long as this is resolved one way or the other I'd be happy. Tielec01 (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it still true that in order to vote you need to have made at least 1 post in the past year? :) Damo^Hi 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you did there. :P WalkerWalkerWalker 09:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I will momentarily, after attempting to summon something resembling eloquence. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)