Talk:Forum moderator

Page title?

Methinks Moderator (Internet) or Forum moderator (seperate from IRC moderator would be better. Any thoughts on this? --Andylkl 19:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am also wondering about a separate entry for online facilitator -- implying the role beyond monitoring/accepting/rejecting posts and ensuring conformance to community standards to a more active role of helping a group accomplish it's goal. Not every online group needs a moderator. Not every group needs a facilitator. But they matter differently in different settings.

i think we definately need to have separate pages for forum mods, irc mods/ops, and discussion/debate moderators (ala cspan hosts). all three fall under "communications," and all three are quite different jobs. pauli 05:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Last section?

The last section is clearly an opinion about mods coming from some resentful boardmember. I wouldnt be surprised if the writer got kicked off of some message board for his/her use of homophobic slurs throughout and his/her seemingly fiery temper. if anybody doesnt mind, i think i'll remove that part.

Pages merged

Moderator (communications) merged into Forum moderator. Since the latter had no talk page, I've moved the former's page here. —Simetrical (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Does this article have to have references? It is a generally accepted concept among everyone on the internet. Someone put it to a vote? --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫íš† ^{tell me about it}

Seriously, is there anyone on Earth who has written a citable source about internet Moderator's? I'd say the best thing is citing the Guidelines for a few forums. Thank You Wiki (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article

This article is really bad. Full of vandalising and non-NPOV remarks. I think it needs a complete re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.252.148 (talk) 22:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it. You can see what I have done here. Tiddly-Tom 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What really needs to be done is that someone has to search through the history to find all the meaningful information that has been overwritten by the vandals... I think that's too troublesome and I'd personally prefer a small stub rather than doing that. I actually think it would be more time consuming that rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.251.91 (talk) 17:57, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Reduced to a stub

I have reduced this article to a stub. It has been marked as unsourced for nearly eighteen months. Providing verifiable sources is not optional and editors have had plenty of time to do so. Much of the text here was original research and personal commentary. Please only restore or add information if you include a proper citation to a reliable source at the same time. Thanks, Gwernol 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of June this article is still a tiny, unsourced stub. I propose to change it back to the pre-shortened article, as a long , fairly informative unsourced article is surely better than a short, pointless unsourced stub. I don't really think anyone will find sources for this. Objections? Ecth (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged in Internet forum

I have merged this in Internet forum, where the section on mods is more detailed and comprehensive, and has one source. Cenarium ^Talk 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all its existence, the article was in a poor state and lacked references. It may be possible to find reliable sources for this article, but in the present state, it's worth redirecting to a more watched and better sourced article. Cenarium ^Talk 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]