Forum:Revamping acknowledgement and the moderator position

Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Revamping acknowledgement and the moderator position

		Yuan 翠珊 — 10:16, October 25, 2014 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		With the recent staff promotion and RfS discussions, I've been thinking about how we might revamp the moderator position and acknowledgement. I had a discussion with SCM and JBed about it on IRC, and thought I should post my musings on it here. The key aims of this revamp would be to distinguish moderator and acknowledgement as two different roles/achievements, and to emphasise the role of staff members. The current state of moderator and acknowledgement Currently, moderator is given more as a reward for users seen as deserving than as a set of tools and a position for an editor to effectively use. It's almost a rite of passage: do some work for a few months to a year, then get promoted to moderator. This work isn't always in the mainspace, either: there are a number of mods who were promoted primarily for their work with policy, the IRC, walkthroughs etc., further confusing the role. Despite it being a staff position, there are significant differences in how we treat moderators and their promotion. Acknowledgement is in a terrible state. People who receive it fall into three main categories: former staff members, those who have done enough work to be staff members but do not want the position and those who aren't quite deserving of moderator for some reason. It's basically seen as an inferior consolation prize, rather than something which is worth achieving in itself. There are no clear guidelines for achieving acknowledgement. Finally, there is confusion as to whether acknowledged users are staff members. The meaning of being a staff member There has been a heavy emphasis on staff members being made mostly to use tools, but I believe we have simplified it too much. Rights do not simply equate to tools, but also the responsibility to use them. Staff members are also expected to be knowledgeable about policy, participate in discussion and be held to a higher standard of behaviour. When we promote a person to staff, we are saying that this user is a person we trust to be a good example as an editor in multiple aspects. Administrators have more tools; thus, they are held to higher standards and have greater responsibility, and it is considered to be a more senior position than moderator. Designers and moderators, likewise, are considered to have more trust given to them than a normal user. Changes to moderator What does this mean for the moderator position? I believe we should modify it so that it better fits the role of a staff position. Like admin, modship should be given to people who have been editing consistently in the mainspace, have good behaviour, participate in discussions and will use the tools. However, the criteria we use will not be as strict or demanding as the ones for being an admin. Moderators are people the wiki community trust to use tools, but don't have the experience/consistency/contributions/desire/behaviour to become an administrator. This means that the position will now be more selective, and not given simply as a reward, but for utility. We may consider given the position more tools to emphasise this. Changes to acknowledgement I would like acknowledgement to be considered as something distinct to moderator - parallel, but not inferior. Acknowledgement would be given as a reward to people who have done excellent work for the wiki, but not in multiple aspects or consistently as a moderator would be expected to do. Examples of this would include: Users who primarily wikignome without participating in any policy discussions, e.g. Xion Valentine. Users who focused on a major mainspace project but do not have interests in other areas, e.g. Spira. Users involved in projects or media related to, but outside of the wiki, e.g. the IRC, social media, LP. Community contributions, e.g. helping new users, writing walkthroughs etc. Users who fulfil the criteria for moderator, but have no use for moderator tools and/or do not want the responsibility or title of staff. Acknowledgement therefore takes on much of the "reward" nature that moderator used to have. It recognises major wiki achievements, but as it comes with no tools, it does not carry the responsibility or expectations of a staff position like moderator. This means that acknowledged users will no longer be staff members. They will have a separate page detailing their achievements and a separate badge. What this means for the RfS and promoting pathways When considering nominating a user for moderator, keep these new criteria in mind. Moderator will be more like a "junior admin" position in how it is perceived and achieved. These changes to moderator reinforce the progression of user -> moderator -> administrator, and it is expected that most users will follow this path. However, note that being promoted to moderator is a symbol of trust, consistency and good editing, and it is these qualities which are important. Thus, if one chooses not to be made a moderator, but displays the qualities we are looking for in an administrator, then a nomination to admin straight from user/acknowledged will be considered. Designer is a similar position of trust, and one can be promoted to admin from there. I think nominations for acknowledgement can also be handled by the RfS system, but setting up another page is fine. Current moderators will be grandfathered. TL;DR Current definitions of mod and acknowledgement are vague and overlap; we want both to be seen as special and different from each other. Acknowledgement currently seen as inferior consolation prize. Mod currently given as reward. Mod is a utility position = given for consistency in editing, policy participation and use of tools. Acknowledgement is a reward = excellent contribution in a particular area. Thoughts?

		12:18, October 25, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		Hm, I'm not sure how much I have to add, but I'll do my best: I agree that acknowledgement is more of an "inferior" role, it's mostly just used to add the Cactuar to someone's page, ie, it doesn't mean a lot. Concur with most of the changes too. Agree with most of the things about Moderator being a junior admin. Disagree with Designer being similar to Moderator. People can be promoted from Designer? I've never seen Designer as a similar role to Moderator either. Designer is two things, a title that declares someone as the person to go to when needing template advice, and a utility role to let them access the MediaWiki pages without needing full admin rights. Moderator is, as said, a junior admin. I don't see why making Designer -> Admin a thing is worthwhile, unless this is just a way to let JBed in. I'd give social media and IRC chanop rights a different section to "acknowledgement", personally. And uh, I think that's it? EDIT: Just talked with Yuan on the IRC, and, it's less about making Designer a bridge to Admin and more about making the Mod -> Admin bridge less rigid. That is something I can wholly agree with, so my 3rd point no longer means anything. :D12:50, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

		BlueHighwind Q? 15:17, October 25, 2014 (UTC) TALK - So if you care to find me, look to the Western Sky!ツ:
		I don't see any reason to oppose any of this. It clarifies what a Moderator promotion should have been in the first place, and makes the Acknowledgement definition much clearer. It really doesn't make too much distinction because I think just about everybody who Social Medias either edits or used to edit enough to get Mod-ness. I still say that one should move up the ranks in a traditional manner, Regular -> Mod/Designer -> Admin. You should only jump ranks if you're the most incredible user we've ever had, the kind of person that works like a Triple JBed and has the demeanor of a saint. (Also I'm Grandfathered into the Mod position anyway, so my place is never threatened.)

		Catuse says at 00:41, October 26, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton."
		Rights do not simply equate to tools, but also the responsibility to use them. Right now mods have four rights, plus everything autoconfirmed has. It might be worthwhile to shift rights around if we're giving mods more 'power' (view rights at Special:ListGroupRights): movefile - self explanatory, and useful enough that every regular user should have it. Maybe add this to autoconfirmed's rights if we're making mods a real part of the staff pyramid instead of just it being a right of passage. noratelimit - useful for uploading sprees but also allows for massive spamming (and so should not be entrusted to autoconfirmed). Maybe if users want to do mass uploads they can send them to a sysop/mod somehow (actually, sysops can already upload faster than anyone else because they can send 40(!) files with Special:MultipleUpload, but I'm not sure the right that controls this).' suppressredirect - useful but can be obnoxious if used by someone who doesn't understand relinking. I'd say don't give to autoconfirmeds. rollback - not very useful. Not worth giving to autoconfirmeds. Also...if we're trusting mods to be more responsible, maybe we could give them block and editprotected? EDIT: Time for a leak from the admin lab! <SomeColorMage> you know, if we could let mods have a limited block function, I'd be all over that, but we can't do that <SomeColorMage> seriously, there's a 2 hour block option good for shutting up vandals that we almost never use <SomeColorMage> but would be pretty useful for lower staff positions <+Catuse> JBed wrote some JS that's user group specific <+Catuse> It could probably be used to force mods to select 2 hours for block time

Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / / 05:13, October 26, 2014 (UTC) Small correction Cat, we can upload 20 at a time. If the thing has been properly modified for Wikia's use, 40 would be for Wikia staff. EDIT 06:41, October 26, 2014 (UTC): For the record, these are things I'd think a mod could have if we're treating them as a junior admin: a very limited version of block - See comment above. Only problem is that I doubt Wikia staff would be OK with it, but it's worth asking. Same goes with protect, that's got a 1 hour option. editprotected - Not 100% sure on this, but if mods are to be more trusted than they currently are, then we can probably trust them with the ability to edit protected pages. autopatrol - I'm pretty sure we already trust mods to create pages without the Recent Changes asking us to look it over. Maybe give them patrol too but I don't really see the point of the power in the first place. move-subpages, move-rootuserpages - More move functionality. There may be some other things but I'm just trying to think of some obvious ones. Also we probably can't give them too many extra powers, either we or Wikia will have to draw a line somewhere. I was originally thinking to give mods ipblock-exempt but that may be considered too much.

		Arciel Spira - Total loser. 06:45, October 26, 2014 (UTC) ∙ Talk ∙ Contributions
		commenting because I see that I've been mentioned. I focus on major mainspace projects (i.e. FFXI articles) mainly because theres no one else on this wiki who is either willing and/or competent to do it. which isn't to say that I "do not have interest" in other areas, i just feel that theres usually already someone around who can cover other areas that I might be interested in. which is why when there was a lack of FFATB content i helped to fill that out. that being said I do prefer project-based work, and id like to believe my strength lies in an eye for preattentive visuals and aesthetic appeal, so I'm glad that my contributions had a major impact on both the sideicon and navbox template projects. anyway, since I'm one of the handful of people who actually hold an acknowledgement, I thought i'd give my 2gils worth as well. if acknowledged users are no longer staff, it wouldn't preclude staff from receiving acknowledgements would it? in other words, you can be a staff and be acknowledged as well yes? cos if not, and they're mutually exclusive.. then it does nothing to change the perception of acknowledgement being inferior. also, i hope we get another cute gif.

		Tia-Lewise - Tread lightly, she is near, under the snow. Speak gently, she can hear the daisies grow TALK - Summoner of Nyan 08:39, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
		Hang on a sec, users who are acknowledged are classed as staff members? I know they could choose whether or not to have the cactuar but uh...how can you be staff with no staff powers? Anyway, that doesn't matter so much. Onto the points. There seems to only be about four or five moderators who hold their position with a reason not relating to the mainspace, and three of them are inactive. This in itself isn't an issue right now as we're looking at pushing forward with something new, but I just thought I should point that one out. But yes, promotion to moderator definitely seen as a rite of passage, I remember in my earlier days working really hard just so everyone would notice me and promote me, and well, it worked, so no complaints there, but it's typical of the way promotion works, just as Yuan says. I'm all for allowing moderators to be able to edit protected pages. It's kind of unfair on them that they can't, it's like saying we're not letting them do their job because they're not a lofty admin. We know he or she isn't going to vandalise anything unless it's completely unintentional, let's at least give them this. I also like the idea of a basic 2 hour block if it's actually possible to do. I wonder whether Wikia would agree with that though. Also yes to mods having autopatrol, though the thing is useless and honestly, I stopped using it after about two weeks of being admined. On a final note: Uh, Grandfathered? *scratches head in confusion*

		Yuan 翠珊 — 09:34, October 26, 2014 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		@Cat/SCM: I like the idea of giving mods more move rights and autopatrol. If we could increase the number of uploads they get, that would be useful as well. No to the limited block, as it has very little use and would probably be rejected by Wikia. We seldom block people for that length of time. I would prefer no to editing protected pages as well - I feel this is one of the important admin rights, and we have to maintain that distinction as well. Consider also what pages are protected: Controversial pages, e.g. pages with edit wars, forum topics that have been closed: we've had mods edit war before. If they were given the right, I am also certain that some controversial threads we've had before would have continued fruitlessly. Important pages, e.g. policy, major templates: I feel this is a right that should be earned as part of gaining enough trust to become an admin. Administrator is still a more senior position. Archived topics: being able to edit it for wiki-gnoming is a valid reason for mods to have this right. @Spira: My apologies for my misunderstanding. Yes, you can be acknowledged and a staff member. However, I will note that as part of the grandfathering, I would prefer that current staff members not be nominated for retroactive acknowledgement to avoid a flood of people being given it immediately. If they do something new which is worthy of acknowledgement, they can go through the same process as other users. Rewards for acknowledgement will be a new badge (Dancing Moogle or Chocobo), a blurb detailing your contributions on the acknowledgement page, and being immortalised in verse by Scathe or I. @Tia: Just stating it here so it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring you: they're currently floating in a quantum not-staff/am-staff space, so this is clarifying their role as distinct.

		10:51, October 26, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		As I've said on IRC, if the basic idea of this thread is to make the roles clearer and to make the RfS page less rigid, then I support. I don't have a lot more to add, though...

		Catuse says at 16:21, October 26, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton."
		Maybe I'm out of touch with our hardworking young proletariat (yes, we're not Rome anymore, now we're early-1900s Europe) but I'm pretty sure we don't protect important policy pages anymore. The last big one was MoS, which I lowered temporarily for Tia to update and then left down by both popular and admin demand (I don't have the IRC logs, because it was last November). Editprotected is NOT the same as editinterface; in other words, they still can't edit MediaWiki-space, which remains the domain of the designers. As for forum topics, I figure that if you keep flaming each other after it's been locked then you shouldn't be a member of the staff, but that is a problem, yes. Autopatrol is a formality, we aren't actually a big enough wiki to put it to use. Similarly, giving staff patroller is kind of pointless. Down the road, if we start getting hundreds of anon edits a day, it might be worthwhile. I'd also argue that most blocks are to stop anons and that 2 hours is enough to bore them. Yeah, Wikia might not like us messing around with JS like that, but that's a risk we take pretty often.

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this, but JavaScript is client-side so no JS-scripted block is full-proof. I can block specific people or those in specific groups from doing a number of things. Removing a specific piece of text from the page, adding a specific piece of text to the page, preventing a user from saving the page, and yes, even limiting the options they can choose on forms.

I'm not sure I would agree with JS-tricks to limit mods. On the other hand, I don't mind using them to limit the masses. JBed (talk) 23:29, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

		23:39, October 26, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		Oppose giving mods the block for reasons: Lots of people were promoted to mod, they weren't promoted to mod with the idea that they can give short bans of any kind in mind. If we're just giving admin rights away to everyone, doesn't that defeat the point of an admin? Designer makes sense, the other admin-exclusive rights don't really make any sense to give away. Giving blocks away, no matter how short, is a bad idea. Like JBed said, it's possible to bypass the JavaScript. Of course, doing so probably will get your rights revoked and you blocked, but it's still not a perfect system. I also think, RE: the RfS changes, we should make a notice by "min requirements" to say they aren't 100% rigid and, at times, can be broken, but probably only by users nominating someone else. That might solve a few of the issues of this thread.

		12:41, October 29, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		A few notes: If Acknowledgement are not Staff, I guess we use a page other than RfS to acknowledge them, right? How about a section on the acknowledgement page itself for nominations? Should there be similar rules to RfS? I think only the "cannot nominate someone for the same position twice" counts, and maybe "cannot nominate yourself". I think the page should just be named "Project:Acknowledgement", the lore name in your sandbox would be nice if Project:Staff was named something lore-related. I'd support giving them lore-related names but having the non-lore related names be redirects or something. Either way, consistency with Project:Staff is all. Just to sort of 'trial' the new system, or double check it, if I say "Mecorx for acknowledgement/moderator", then I'm doing it wrong, right? I should be nominating mecorx (well deserving) for one or the other? I personally feel like recognising translation work means that acknowledgement is what she'll get, but if she's more an on-going worker and would make use of the utility, mod is not a bad choice for her, either...though then again, acknowledgement=/=staff, but I for whatever reason am unsure about someone appearing in both, even if it's not actually a bad thing. I...am understanding this system, right? And that's it from me, fine with everything else.

When this was discussed on IRC I said mod rights should be given to those we trust and can make use of the tools. Though Yuan said that's exactly what she means, my problem is the perception of "junior admin". I feel like mod should be more like "manual confirmed". Where autoconfirmed is the automatic verification that the user isn't just a bot so they can't do certain things, "manual confirmed" would make sense because we manually verify that the user is a good contributor and therefore give them some more tools that aren't so destructive (can't remove pages, moving files isn't much less problematic than moving pages, rollback is not that special).

I'm saying we shouldn't treat it much like staff at all really, and give it out more often.

If we did this, acknowledgement would be more significant. Mod = being an editor, Ack = doing something notable. JBed (talk) 12:48, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

		12:59, October 29, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		In that case, I think Mecorx for mod. I actually kinda agree with "manual confirmed", most mod rights are more basic utility. I don't agree with giving it out more often; it'll be given out fairly often as it is since we will have an RfS page soon too. I do agree with making Acknowledgment more rare. Also, by that definition, wouldn't people like Xion be mod instead? She was turned down for mod because she never talks (and was rude to people in discussions until very recently), but if it's purely about the rights, then she can be modded. But she also said she didn't want mod...hmmmmm... I dunno, I kind of like the "manual confirmed" idea more than "junior admin", but I do think it should stay as rare as it is.

Yeah, I think Xion should would be mod under what I propose. Though it wouldn't be staff so it wouldn't have as much weight. It would just be "have some more editing tools", like what happens when you get autoconfirmed.

A whole staff nom thing might not even be necessary. Unless they've done malicious or disruptive things recently, I don't think their attitude in discussions or similar things really matters.

If we want efficiency, then the more people with tools who we also trust not to abuse them is better. JBed (talk) 13:06, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Closing the discussion (soon)

		Yuan 翠珊 — 00:59, November 2, 2014 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		Okay, I think we're all agreed on the acknowledgement part. I'll put up a final project page and nomination area soon. I'll also go through Project:A history and see who might be acknowledged from that. Moderator is still being discussed re:rights and whether anyone supports JBed's view.

Since no one's responded I guess I'll make another post.

What Yuan is suggesting (and feel free to correct me if I'm not quite accurate) is that staff levels of Mod and Admin positions to be more related to wiki positions of authority, rather than just tools. Because whether we want it to or not, that is how they are seen. Basically we assign users to these positions who fit in with a wiki pyramid, and then the tools are just a nice bonus.

Which I find bizarre. I think efficiency is far more important than some pointless staff structure*(which at the end of the day means nothing. staff have the trust to use the tools, not the trust to be superior in any other way). Mod should not be above normal users beside their ability to use the tools, and what better way to show that than to not make them staff. Not in the sense we do now anyway. The current tools of the mod are just a step above regulars, things that we might not want some random user user using. But if we know they are a verifiably useful user then why not?

In the face of a user working on uploads and then realising they need to move an image, why should they have to meet some standard that typically requires them being here for a few years? Similarly, when a user sees a vandal in IRC what's up with them needing to have the same experience to revert their contributions slightly faster? It is hampering efficiency for users to meet certain conditions (being that the idea is to be even more selective than we are now) to get those tools that would be useful and that we would trust them with.

So "manual confirmed"-- a user who has been observed as trusted to use some more tools.

Perhaps if we add more rights this may change? I'd actually prefer a new group be added into the mix so manual confirmed can still be a thing because the efficiency purposes still stand. But what rights are you to grant? Not even the editing of protected pages /like protected pages even exist/. We don't even trust these more-trusted users to not continue a disagreement after someone has stepped in to both warn and protect? And patrolling is pointless, and the other move rights I wouldn't mind rollbackers having anyway.

tl;dr: it is all about tools and we maintain that besides it users are still equal; give more users the ability to edit better. JBed (talk) 11:48, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

		Catuse says at 19:51, November 3, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton."
		I wasn't responding because I didn't have anything to say -- I felt this was going nowhere a while ago, back when the debate about "grandfathering" was happening. Because really, it has been going for three weeks now, if not longer. But I also don't think that the difference between Yuan's proposal and yours isn't as significant as you think. There's three things holding back users from becoming mods who would be "manual confirmed" in Yuan's proposal: Users who make very specialized edits -- someone who does nothing but write is very valuable but unlikely to have a lot of use for gnome-ish mod tools; on the other hand, the only gnome editors who haven't been promoted to mod are Shockstorm and Xion Valentine. Shockstorm turned them down; Xion didn't even respond, so evidently she doesn't care if she has the extra tools or not. Users who don't communicate -- encouraging users to check the forum regularly is a fair trade, I think, for making it harder for users to become mods. People tend to think it's just wikipolitics, and a lot of the time it is (*coughthisthreadcough*) but there is valuable stuff in the forum that all editors should be aware of, like the Map Extension thread. Also, users who watch Recent Changes are more likely to use Rollback or other gnome tools. Users who aren't in good standing with the community -- this I disagree with. A certain user, a year or two ago, got some support as a mod in a Staff Discussion thread, but IRC users reacted negatively, so the crats simply ignored the nomination. But I think his was an isolated case. So I'm actually agreeing with you that the idea of manual confirmed makes a lot of sense (especially if we create an extra rights group -- but that will probably never happen), but in practice, it's insignificant. Also, heiarchy can create efficiency if checked. This already happens in practice. Nobody said Yuan and Scathe should run fora, but those are the two users who are decisive enough to make Staff Discussions and other big threads, and they were both promoted to crat this year. They're the two keeping this thread and the related threads moving when they slow down. (This is also why I supported you for crat in the old thread). Ideally crats could also maintain the Clan Primer, the Staff Noticeboard, the Returner's Conclave, and related pages. But that doesn't happen because nobody cares about projectspace.

• The person who creates the thread usually manages it. There aren't many deviations from that unless someone else picks it up because they have a special interest.
• Xion and Shock turned down the role with the current perception of rollback.
• Yuan says "more selective than it is now". I'm going the opposite, users like CrappyScrap, HarpieSiren, LeafShinobi*(three users I just plucked from the RC) would be fair "promotions". Not because they would use them, but they might and them and we trust them too. Worst case scenario they don't use them, or they go insane and we have an editor who can vandalise slightly quicker*(but how many editors have ever gone rogue?).
• More immediately obvious example, mecorx could move images. As the editor she currently is, I don't think she'll get a promotion. Would we trust her with the rights? Of course. But the expectations of what a mod should be clouds judgement of what is most helpful to the wiki. JBed (talk) 21:32, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

		23:44, November 3, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		To publicly clarify my stance: Disagree with making moderator less staff-y: "Moderator" is a term commonly associated with "junior admin", ie, staff. Without moderator being staff-y, there is no step-down from admin, thus, no step-up towards it either. A stopgap is nice. I always liked this wiki's stopgap. Agree with Yuan on mod being respectful position: "Moderator" as an internet term implies such. This was always the point of moderator. If we don't respect you as a helpful/useful contributor, we don't want you to revert edits without a summary. Agree that mod should not be a reward, instead, should be utility/junior admin position, ie, what the thread is suggesting anyway. Support minimal changes made to mod, acknowledgement changes are enough. That's all, folks.

Hi all. Just wanted to say thanks for mentioning me in this discussion. It would certainly be beneficial to have access to image renaming/deletion tools considering my current involvement with the FF Airborne Brigade and Pictlogica projects, which will see the addition of thousands of new images. I will also continue to assist with projects involving translation and Japanese content.  mecorx (talk) - 06:22, Nov 04, 2014  

I (and some of the other admins) feel that mecorx could be accepted as a mod under the new system; I also think HarpieSiren would make sense as a mod if she came around more often. No opinion on CrappyScrap and LeafShinobi either way; I haven't seen them around for long enough. There is another user or two I'd like to nominate once the RfP page goes up though. :p C A T U S E 06:36, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but also think that mecorx should be modded (the others not so much, no offense) and it would be nice to get this discussion completed, since I think we're generally on agreement here besides one or two dissenting parties. And that it would be nice to also get the RfS or RfP page up shortly after that. --BlueHighwindツ 21:54, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thing stopping RfS at this point, so unless there are some last minute objections I think we can launch it (along with a mod application for mecorx, which I support as well) as soon as Yuan's decided this is over. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:07, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

All I have to say on maybe modding Mecorx is that isn't this the very reason we wanted a more definitive reason for modding? Giving someone mod powers just because they've started moving images is, to me, exactly what Yuan was saying about people just becoming mods for no massive reason, and it's a little lazy imo. Also, Mecorx can have a bit of an attitude on the IRC and has received a complaint before, so I think if she were to be modded, she needs to be actively editing a little longer, and try to drop the attitude on the IRC. Thankfully I've never seen this on the actual wiki. Tia-Lewise 14:13, November 5, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Tia said (while totally disagreeing at the same time).

I think I'm confused again, because Mod may have been given as a reward in the past but it was given as a reward to people who had been here editing consistently for years (and who would still use them). If we do this properly we shouldn't be more selective. Mecorx has only been editing again for a little over two weeks (after prompts to help in a project, before that not consistently since the opening of the year). What metrics are we using here?

I see mecorx fulfilling two criteria, will certainly use the tools and has trust. Is this not the over-simplification that staff==tools?

I think Tia's comments are good points, which is why I don't think the rollback group should have these staff expectations. I think the group should be seen strictly as tools granted to users we trust to to use them. JBed (talk) 14:43, November 5, 2014 (UTC)