Forum:Chat Moderator Request - Spocklan116

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Chat Moderator Request - Spocklan116

Hello Nukapedia I am Spocklan116 I am coming before you to asking for the position of chat moderator.

Who am I?

I'm sure a few of you know me a bit. My first name is Lachlan. I'm a 16 year old from Australia who is currently being home school living with my Mother my Step Dad and my two sisters. I Am aspiring to become a game designer but recently I have become more interested in let's playing and streaming as it can be both fun and profitable.

Why me?

I Joined Nukapedia in late 2012 after using the wiki to help me with quests and items. I have forgotten most of my early days in the wiki but I can remember that I was in chat a lot because everyone had a very similar interest the fallout series.

During my time on Nukapedia, I Have become more active in the community but I have become greatly active on the chat and I was voted into the position of "Vice President of the Enclave" about a month ago which was a pretty big achievement to me.

The reason to why I want to be a chat moderator is because I want to help and fill in those odd times when other chat moderators are not around. Since I live in Australia I can cover a huge time zone including those odd times.

Thank you for reading I hope to see your thoughts bellow

Edit Count

There should have been a list of this user's edit counts here, but the edit counts feature is no longer available.

Availability

Weekdays 10pm to 12pm GMT

Weekends 10pm to 2pm GMT

Endorsement

I officially endorse Spocklan's request for chat mod. Best of luck, Spock. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 23:33, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Vote

Poll finished on 11:33 pm April 15, 2014 (UTC).

• 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 user's votes.

Yes

1. >inb4 the trend of yes ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
2. Your President supports you wholeheartedly. Make me proud! 23:49, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
3. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 01:41, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
4. --I really need to get a signature (talk) 04:46, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
5. You cover a time when mods are often away or gone altogether, and it would help relieve the stress on people like me around during this time, freeing us up to go to bed or do other activities we may need to do. I'd like to see this request go through so I don't feel guilty going to bed some nights with no mods or only one other mod around. I don't like leaving so much stress on one mod to watch chat for hours on end alone. - Chris 09:02, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. --Skire (talk) 23:54, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
2. I'm a bit conflicted here. On one hand, I think you have what it takes to be a chat mod, or at the very least have the potential to get there. On the other hand, as someone who is in chat fairly often, I have yet to see a need for a permanent chat mod that isn't filled by Emiko and Hail's recent elections to the position. Admins have the right to delegate temporary mods, and I think for now that is sufficient to cover any lapses in moderation. Until such a time when there is proof of continuous and/or prolonged periods with a lack of moderation, I can't support this request.  A Follower  Talk  00:01, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
3. While you do cover a time frame when mods tend to be a little sparse, that's also when we have the least amount of chat activity. I originally started writing this as a comment, then realized that there isn't enough here for a yes vote. You spend a decent amount of time in our chat, but I don't have complete confidence in your ability to mod. --MountHail (talk) 00:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
4. ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 01:17, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
5. I like you, Lachlan. You're a good friend of mine, but I just don't think you're ready for this position yet. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:21, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
6. Sorry, friend. I like you, and would the timing/circumstances have been different, I might have voted yes for you. But as it is right now, the fact is that we finally got our chat through a tenuous period where it was controlled by a certain group of friends which made the atmosphere in there poisonous and hateful. As it is right now, they are simply being replaced by another group of close friends, and I have to wonder if maybe history would repeat itself if it continues this way again. Consider this vote not against your character, but a vote against your timing in an unfortunate position for Nukapedia. I know this vote will probably be confusing to you and others, but I hope you can understand my sincerity on this matter. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:33, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
7. If it were at a different timing I would say yes, but Hail and Emiko just became chat moderators so I'm afraid I have to decline. That being said, don't hesitate to run again for chat moderator in the future because I guarantee you we'll probably need some again. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:59, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
8. --RAM 05:52, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
9. Chatmoderator is one of those positions that get's iffy when we get a fair amount of new applicants to the position (as seems to be the case lately with the shift of so many users to new extra rights). This is one of the few times that I can with certainty say that we are not in need of any new chat moderators, as far as I can see at the current moment chat has a great number of active users with stars on at most times (their are exceptions to this, but those times are brief and can be taken care of by temp mods). Unfortunately I can't support your request at the current time, as we just don't have a demand for another chat mod at the moment. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:01, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
10. Two new chat moderators were just elected, so I don't think we need any more at this point in time. Leea (talk) 22:27, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Excluded votes

I'm still not sure. I like you, Spock, but I also understand where the No voters are coming from... Touch call.... Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:24, April 9, 2014 (UTC) I've decided to re-consider my vote for the time being. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:07, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Is there anything to indicate that a chat mod is required during your times of presence? Agent c (talk) 23:52, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

@Agent C I've been around when there are no mods or chat bot a few users come in so I guess a chat mod would be required to make sure nothing bad happens ^{Vice President Spocklan116} 00:01, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

I would be looking for more than that... Any dates, times, concrete examples? Agent c (talk) 00:04, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm I'm often during the European day on a chat with no mods/admins online, while Spocklan is there. And sometimes, there are stars available, but they don't reply on any pings... - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 00:13, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

@Agent C well this usually happens around 2pm GMT but I'm not sure if the time converter I'm using is right or not. ^{Vice President Spocklan116} 00:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

That would be 10pm AEST? Its usually sparse in her at that time. Agent c (talk) 00:37, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Just a question for posterity's sake, but can an endorsing admin cast a vote that is anything but a yes? I was under the assumption that giving an endorsement precluded one from voting no or neutral. Not to question Paladin's right to vote or anything, I'm merely curious on how to view this, as to my knowledge it has never happened before.  A Follower  Talk  01:55, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

I see no issue with it, personally. To me, an endorsement simply means you approve of the situation at hand enough to give it a chance. Unless specifically stated as such, I do not see endorsements as saying they are 110% behind whomever is being supported. I say they have every right to vote neutral or even no on something they accept enough to give an endorsement on. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:29, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Whilst it may be unusual, I see no problem with it - one may only only be "endorsing" them to the point of meeting the requirements... However having thought about it, there might be other implications if the endorser was seen as not fully endorsing. Agent c (talk) 02:43, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I take no issue, but I would expect that an endorsement means you approve of the applicant's request and would therefore vote yes. However, as Leon said, it could also be interpreted as approving of the applicant enough to let his request stand a chance before the wiki public. 71.174.57.242 19:40, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

If the endorsement is only to the point of meeting the requirements, or interpreted as approving enough to let the request stand a chance before our community, then why have it at all? It seems to me like the endorsement says two things: an admin believes the position is warranted and that the specific user is right for the job. If an admin endorses and does not believe one (or both) of those points, then to me that makes the whole endorsement system a moot point.  A Follower  Talk  05:54, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘While that is a very reasonable viewpoint and one I personally agree with, the implications of admin endorsement are not actually outlined in our policies. --Skire (talk) 13:16, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps that is something we should revisit, if only for the sake of clarification moving forward. I see no real problem with the system as it stands, but as chat mods and moderators have proven to be the less 'steady' of our extra-rights positions, we may want to clarify the implications of an endorsement for those applying for chat mod rights in the future.  A Follower  Talk  17:10, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

As long as we do not tread grounds of insisting endorsers vote only a certain way, I would support a short discussion or PSA as referral material towards those that wish to endorse in the future. Nothing harmful about a bit of clarification. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:14, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It need not really be defined more. The definition of the word itself suffices:

“en·dorse enˈdôrs/ verb 1. declare one's public approval or support of.”

And

“You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator”— (emphasis mine)

The admin declares their public approval or support of (endorses) you, the applicant. Not the application. Hope this clears everything up.- The Gunny   19:43, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

This was always the way I personally interpreted it. However it may reflect negatively on an endorser if they turn back on that approval without a clear reason to do so... --Skire (talk) 20:37, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

I reckon that depends on how the endorsing admin understood those definitions to be. If they believed that they were to endorse the application, ie for meeting the minimum requirements, filling an open time slot, etc.. they could then reassess their endorsement in light of the correct interpretation of endorsing the applicant themselves. If the endorsing admin, applying a different definition of "endorses" decides to withdraw the endorsement on those grounds, the entire application would be null and the applicant would then be allowed to find endorsement elsewhere. At least, that's what I feel would be reasonable. Or, of course, the endorsing admin could also find that they already approve or support the applicant, at which time they show that by voting yes. Those seem to be the fair options if this were to occur. The Gunny   19:31, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Since I am the one that kind of accidentally started this discussion, I mine as well explain my intentions. I agreed to endorse Spock because I both liked him (despite our occasional Enclave "debates"), because I thought he would be an alright chat mod, and because I believed he should have a chance to actually run. However, before I even agreed to endorse him, I warned him how people have disliked the number of people running for chat mod recently. I too began to feel like we've had too many applications lately. For this reason, I was conflicted between my belief that Spock would be a good chat mod and my belief that we already have enough. That is why I voted Neutral, without actually thinking how that may affect my endorsement. I still stick by my endorsement, however, which is why I quickly revoked my vote. I would like to apologize for any controversy my hasty actions may have caused. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 21:15, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Do not apologize if you did nothing wrong. Votes are not black and white - you are perfectly capable of voting any way you wish regardless of endorsement. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:16, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

It's a perfectly understandable rationale. Flexibility is almost always better than rigidity. --Skire (talk) 22:47, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

As this vote comes to a close I would like to thank those who supported me I know I won't get the rights and I accept the fact I wont. I Have also been thinking for the past few days and I have decided I don't really wont the rights as I feel like I am not ready I guess I wasn't thinking straight when I put this out because a lot has been happening and I will bring up the request again when things have settled down and when I am allowed to. ^{Vice President Spocklan116}