AVID:Requests for Comment/Introduce the "Moderator" Role

Introduce the "Moderator" Role
Introduction

AVID in the present day is bigger than ever, and continues to grow even larger each day. In fact, we are one of the biggest Wikis on the Miraheze platform. This growth means the site requires more manpower to keep it afloat. I would like to propose, further to a discussion on the Wiki's official Discord server, the introduction of a Moderator role to complement the existing Admin and Bureaucrat roles. It could also be a stepping stone for users wanting to progress onto the Admin or Bureaucrat roles in the future.

Why am I suggesting this?

The Admin and Bureaucrat role require an extreme level of dedication to the Wiki, needing to be available most of the time to help keep the Wiki in check. And with sockpuppets, vandals and bad faith editors on the rise, the Admin team could definitely use some extra assistance at times. This role is for those users who do not feel like they could give the commitment to an Administrator role, but would like to play a more active role in assisting the Admin team in keeping the Wiki clean and free from vandals and poor edits.

What would the requirements be?

-You must have at least 250 edits and they must be in good faith. (This includes edits on the old WikiFoundry site)

-You must not have been strongly warned within the last 3 months or tempblocked within the last 6 months.

-You should show a keen interest in the site and willingness to get involved with the community.

-You should show evidence of helping out the Admin team in the past. This includes reporting users and alerting Admins, but it does not require you to have done any rollbacks in the past.

Actions users have taken on the Wiki's official Discord server will also be taken into account when considering users for Moderator.

What responsibilities would Moderators have?

The moderators of the site won't get as many responsibilities as the higher up Administrators or Bureaucrats, but they will be able to exercise the following:

-Block users for up to 2 months. They will not, however, be able to revoke talk page access, so all users can appeal their ban. In the case of a sockpuppet or vandal, a Moderator can exercise a 2 month block to stop the sock from vandalising the site, and then an Admin or Bureaucrat can follow up with a more permanent block.

-Issue Warnings and Strong Warnings.

-Restore and Delete Pages and Files.

-Add RfCs to the main page, however closing them will still only remain in the hands of the Bureaucrats.

Other responsibilities users may want should be put forward.

How would poorly behaved Moderators be disciplined?

-Moderators would be elected using the same system that elects Admins and Bureaucrats. A Request for Moderator section will be added to the Requests for Adminship page. Moderators can also have their rights revoked under Requests for Revocation.

-A light infringement of the rules severe enough to warrant a temporary demotion will have their demotion period determined by a Bureaucrat

-Users permanently demoted will not be able to apply for Moderator again for 3 months. They will not be allowed to apply for Admin until they have proved themselves again as Moderators.

'''I have the commitment needed for Admin. Can I skip Moderator and jump straight to Admin?'''

Absolutely!

Conclusion

The Moderator role would allow users to help out the Admins and Bureaucrats by gaining slightly elevated powers to help keep the Wiki clean and free from vandals, without them having the power to allow major changes to happen to the Wiki. It would also act as a first stepping stone onto the Wiki's staff team for users who want to elevate themselves to Admin or Bureaucrat in the future.

Luke2505 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  this is one of the rare occasions where I wish we still had Strongest variants. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 11:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Compooper (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Good idea! However, if it passes I will most likely not become one though I have over 250 edits (304 as of writing this, this will be 305) since my goal is to skip straight to be an admin when I reach 1000 edits! Sickminecraft45 Signature Icon.jpg   (Talk to Me!) 15:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It takes more than just raw numbers to become an administrator, man. Solarstrike (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does everybody think that its just the edit count that makes you eligible? You'd still need to be elected by the people, and the people can see every single edit that you've made, good or bad. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 01:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) . An excellent middle ground that reflects well, given there is similar functionality on the Discord - may as well translate it to the wiki as well. Solarstrike (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  per everyone else NLiteChannel.jpg (The Third Place) 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * It has been brought to my attention that you cannot restrict someone's banning capabilities should you choose to give them that power. Therefore, this particular responsibility may have to be modified. I believe any community-elected Moderator should still retain banning powers, but if they are misused, it is grounds for an instant demotion without a Request for Revocation. Good faith wrongful bans will be subject to lighter punishment. Luke2505 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)