Forum:Wiki moderators

We have recently instated several permanent chat moderators, and we have also been giving various users rollback rights (which allow for one-click reverting of vandalism) for a while, without any formal requirements. What do you think about formalizing the "moderator" group, which would have both rollback and chat moderator rights, and would need to formally request these rights via forum, with some formal criteria for doing so, obviously lower than ones for administrators. E.g. 250+ edits in the article/category/template namespaces plus 2 months of continued activity.

What do you think? Ausir(talk) 02:00, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Yes It would mean that there are more responsible users looking out for the safety of the wiki, and that's always a good thing. 01:59, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes EB 02:06, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- ☢Valoopy☣ 02:08, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes It seems like a fine idea! BILLYOCEAN 05:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I approve of the idea. Hugs Scar: "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 10:31, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Let's hope they don't go mad with power, rolling everything back. - Crazy Sam10 Talk User blog:Crazy sam10 10:35, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Jasper likes. 10:39, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Can't argue with that. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!)

Yes Makes perfect sense to me. Go for it. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann 12:16, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes since it seems in the last months we have had several votes called for people who wanted admin status i think moderators could help give those individuals wanting to become and admin away to show what they can do BigDogW 14:53, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Why not =)? And it will allow users to have some right without becoming admin and without the difficult requirements and constraints that the admin status imposes. But hope that the moderator status will not distributed like hot cakes since the requirements is lower and like Crazy said, they don't go mad with power. Itachou [~talk~] 15:05, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think that this will be a useful addition to the Vault, and the above reasons say enough in my opinion.

Yes Good idea to formalise practice. Agent c 18:07, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes For the combined rollback and chat mod rights aka "moderators". On a side note, I would still keep the informal approach to just rollback rights. Since rollback rights doesn't actually give any extra tools to that of a normal user, it simple saves 5 seconds of work and 2 extra clicks of the mouse in reality. User Avatar talk.png 18:29, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. --RAM 09:37, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sure. --User Avatar talk.png 01:01, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes This sounds like a good plan. I've noticed from time on this and other wikis that, in general, even unregistered users try to make positive contributions. Wikis work because, against everything I've learned about the Internet, you actually can trust people to try to promote knowledge.--SushiSquid 01:17, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Like the idea. veryblackraven 13:29, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sounds good to me. Gheart 18:36, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I feel we should move up the standard a little bit, 500 edits on article pages, 2 months of continued activity for applying for chatmod + rollback status. With 250 edits in 2 months you made 5 edits a day which can be really not even 10 minutes of work. And in that case you haven't done that much editing to need or deserve the rollback. If you're so keen on becoming a chatmod, you also need to do some serious editing. Additional, we should keep the unofficial rollback requests available (without chatmod status). And I think we should raise the admin threshold to 1,000 edits in 3 months. It's not that much. Jspoel 21:26, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm not going to change my vote, but what Jspoel has said above is right, and I feel that that would be a good idea if you do create the moderator role formally. TheGuardianCalligraphy.pngGuardianoftheWastesTag.png
 * I agree fully on Jspoelstra's point, the official demands on an admin is extremely unrealistic compared to the actual demands, as a person with 500 edits and three months attendance can never hope to be an Admin in actual fact. The official demands should be pushed up to the unofficial, in my opinion, or at least to a minimum of 1000 edits. Hugs Scar: "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 11:40, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Jspoel and Scar, I feel it should be harder to become an admin/mod on a wiki of this size. --RAMRam.ShyGuy.gif 11:49, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Ram, it is harder, but the point is that the official demands are extremely misleading in comparison to what is actually demanded of an admin/mod. I think we should officialise the actual requirements instead of this extremely low bar. It might have been a decent bar back in the day, but the wiki has grown, and so has the demends. Hugs Scar: "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 11:52, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Result
The proposal will be implemented. However, first we'd need to vote on the following issue: Moderator and administrator minimum requirements.