Forum:Policy Vote Rights Request Requirement Changes

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Policy Vote Rights Request Requirement Changes

After 5 weeks of discussion we've come to a solid set of new requirements for right requests proposals. I don't really have much of an introductory statement to this proposal, you've all heard my thoughts on everything and I think we've arrived at a fair set of new requirements for special rights users from the bottom up. This forum will propose those changes as official policy. Thank you to everyone who provided input, this is our first step towards a more unified community.

The previous discussions can be found here and here.

I believe that some of these proposed requirement changes will make some of the current staff fall below the requisite requirements. As a result, I will add a final proposal which will stipulate that persons who are or were staff on or before the end date of this proposal vote will not have their rights removed if they do not meet the new requirements.---bleep196- (talk) 18:20, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Edit: At the request of Leon, I have placed a temporary lock on the vote in order to incoporate policies related to the New User Network. When the page is unlocked, the poll timer will be reset.

Edit Edit: The page has been unlocked for voting once more.

Poll finished on 7:56 pm May 31, 2019 (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.

Patroller

Current Standards

“The minimum requirements for becoming a patroller are:

• You've made at least 250 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
• If you have been previously elected Chat Moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.”

Proposed Requirement Changes

The "minimum" requirements for becoming a patroller are:

• You've made at least 750 edits in the article, category, module, or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
• If you have been previously elected Chat moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.
• You have displayed a thorough understanding of and mastery of the basic editing tools.
  • This includes the ability to help other users who may have questions in regards to editing.

Yes

1. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:03, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
2. Beside the literal impossibility of a user becoming truly acquainted with the style guidelines on a wiki of this magnitude with only 250 edits (one can easily make that many in a day doing routine maintenance), I think some people here are missing the broader point of extending the prerequisites for patroller. Indeed, the position is not in and of itself something which is particularly subject to abuse. It is, however, a stepping stone to other editorial positions, like content moderator, and is fundamentally still a staff position—like it or not, patrollers represent the staff. If you can't even bother to get 750 edits before applying for this position (once again, an incredibly small number for a wiki this big), do we really want you to be a staff member? It's not an excessive amount and shows dedication to the wiki, rather than a desire to have a shiny badge. TESWiki has a 2500 edit requirement for patrollers. In part because of this requirement (and others), we do not have behavior problems among staff; the only people insane enough to go for that genuinely care about the site. I really do not understand the conflicting goals here: "we want to improve the quality of the staff" goes hand-in-hand with "making it harder for unqualified users to become staff." —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
3. Bovinejeff (talk)
4. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. 250 edits is plenty for a patroller. See also the comments the last time this was proposed and rejected. Aya42 (talk) 18:52, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. Patroller only gives minimalistic rights, and I feel that there are better ways to award the rights to aspiring editors. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. I agree with most things on the list, however 750 is a bit much. Perhaps 500 would be better? User:Fallout Engineer
4. As per Leon and aya. Jgrsoto 18:50, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
5. I agree with the other votes, I even think 500 would be too much. 750 edits may be nothing to some, but to others that make larger edits that can take rather long. Users have different ways of editing, and because this position is unique since it is decided by a bureaucrat, a lower edit count will leave more room for the bureaucrat to decide case-by-case. --DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:23, May 20, 2019 (UTC) DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:00, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As I said in the forum 2.0, I do have some new concerns with patroller that I would at least like to see discussed further. Beyond that, I have no comment on the stats needed, and I defer judgement to those more familiar and likely to be affected on this front. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:04, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. I do not think that the 750 edit requirement will change much since there's barely ever editors who qualify for patroller rights before hitting 750 edits anyway. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
3. I don't like raising the minimum reqs, but they are closer to reality and may therefore disappoint less users when they don't get patroller (yet) - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:11, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• The phrase "continuously active" is used for many of these role requirements but is never clearly defined. I think this should be clarified as to whether this intends to correspond to the badge "contribute to the wiki every day for XXX days" or not. -- Bovinejeff (talk) 23:19, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • It's hard to quantify each person's activity, but I would say it means, at minimum, you're present on the wiki weather through editing, /d posts, or discord posts in some way or form on a week to week, and possibly even every other day basis. Its unreasonable to expect someone to be editing or conducting actions every single day of the week, people have lives, jobs, friends, and family and at the end of the day this is a hobby we indulge ourselves in. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:00, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • That's fine if that's understood, but I'm suggesting that maybe it should be clarified with more specific wording than simply "continuously active" to avoid confusion or later arguments. -- Bovinejeff (talk) 16:55, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Chat Moderator

Current Standards

“The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

• You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
• You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.”

Proposed Requirement Changes

The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

• You must understand the basics of editing, and be able to teach others how to accomplish basic edits.
  • You must be able to instruct and direct discord users on how to vote and comment on forum posts as necessary.
• You've created 5000 posts within any of the channels within the discord.
  • You've displayed mastery of discord's interface and tools through interactions with others.
• You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.

Yes

1. I agree that a understanding of discord is needed for a chat moderator. This shows they are in touch with the community. User:Fallout Engineer
2. The Discord specific changes are all welcome. Asking users to have a basic understanding of the wiki, combined with extra ordinarily relaxed edit requirements, makes sense and should not be a significant burden The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:16, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:04, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
4. 250 edits may sound like a lot to someone with 0 edits, but because of the variety of namespaces permitted here, it is unfathomably easy to reach that number in a fairly short amount of time. Blog and forum comments are not in any way difficult to obtain. The same logic that I mentioned with the patroller vote applies here; as staff, you are sometimes going to have to do things you don't like to do, and if you can't even bother to get that number of edits, I really think you should not be a staff member. The other requirements are also appropriate. You want better staff, weed out the people who can't handle doing even the most simple tasks. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
5. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
6. Laat the Survivor (talk) 16:43, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. Chat Moderators do not need to understand other aspects of the wiki outside of their comfort zone, as their position is a rather specific one. In the case of users under their medium seeking help outside of the chat, Chat Moderators should already be well aware of the Administration tab on the wiki, and who to point them towards. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. For the same reasons as Leon. The actual wiki, discussions and chat are three distinct entities with different purposes. If a user wishes to use all of them, that's their choice, but we should not be alienating users who only wish to use one or two of these systems. Aya42 (talk) 20:50, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. after thinking it over, i think something similar to my idea for discussions moderators would work. give new chat mods a crash course on everything wiki side they’ll need to know such as verifying, logging bans, the ban talk page template, ect. President Autumn 00:01, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

1. I feel that the edit requirements for chat mod should be the same as those for d mod. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
2. I agree with the message requirement, but the edit requirement is too high. Sure, it is in any namespace, but I think this would lead to scenarios where users simply spam 250 user page edits to qualify. With hundred, a good portion of the edits will come naturally. Ideally we'd drop the edit count and instead simply have candidates prove they are able to leave talk page messages, which is all they need to be able to do in that position. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:04, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
3. I like the first requirement more than the 50 edits, but it can't be measured in my opinion. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:13, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Moderator

Proposal

Remove the role in its entirety, and allow "moderators" to request content moderator rights.

Yes

1. Aya42 (talk) 18:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. User:Fallout Engineer
4. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
5. it’s about time President Autumn 22:56, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
6. 
7. A confusing role to begin with. No use for it here. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
8. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
9. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
10. It's been confusing for way too long. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:06, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:15, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Content Moderator

Current Standards

“The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:

• You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
• You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.”

Proposed Requirement Changes

The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:

• You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You display a thorough mastery of basic and advanced editing tools, as well as substantial experience utilizing templates.
  • You must be able and/or willing to answer editing questions if brought forward.
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
• You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator(Either removed or renamed), for a minimum of two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.
  • Individuals holding discussions moderator rights that are seeking content moderator rights should apply for administrator given the overlap between the rights groups permissions.

Yes

1. User:Fallout Engineer
2. Looking at the stats requirements, I defer once again. However, consider my vote a yes for some of the added stipulations such as a understanding that the position is one that may require offering guidance to less confident or confused editors. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:05, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
4. Even more than patroller, content moderators need to understand pretty much every editorial aspect of the site so that they can guide new editors and answer questions that come their way. A prerequisite of 2000 edits is a perfectly reasonable number on a wiki of this size to accommodate that necessity. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
5. Bovinejeff (talk)
6. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
7. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. 1000 edits is plenty. Aya42 (talk) 18:57, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. My thoughts are entirely identical on this front to my Patroller point. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. Asper Leon and Aya. Jgrsoto 18:54, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Both seem fine to me. 1000 or 2000 is pretty good. Acj1225 (User talk:Acj1225)
2. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:08, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Discussions Moderator

Current Standards

“To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.

• You must have made at least 2000 discussions posts.
• Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
• Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
• Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
• If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
• You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".”

Proposed Requirement Changes

To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.

• You must have made 2500 discussions posts.
  • You must display complete mastery of all discussions functions.
• You must understand the basics of editing, and be able to teach others how to accomplish basic edits.
  • You must be able to instruct /d users on how to vote and comment on forum posts as necessary.
• Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
• Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
• Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
• If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
• You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".
  • Due to permissions held by content moderator, discussions moderator meeting the prerequisites for the former are encouraged to apply for administrator rights.

Yes

1. User:Fallout Engineer
2. Same as with chat mod, the edit requirements are significantly relaxed. Given the complete lack of an Editorial Bullpen equivalent on /d, it may be even more valuable. At the very least we should be able to answer basic questions a confused user might have. I too would have liked to see more /d user feed back, but the forums were open for nearly a month and half with links provided to the community. We cannot force anyone to participate in conversations directly affecting them, unfortunately. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:32, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. with my suggestion to just teach new d mods now being used, i vote yes. President Autumn 00:05, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
4. Since the edit requirement is replaced with only requiring basic editing knowledge (which isn’t too difficult to obtain) I’ll just give my vote the ol’ switcheroo Laat the Survivor (talk) 00:25, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
5. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:06, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
6. Saxhleel12 (talk)
7. I would have liked to see an actual edit requirement, as with the other positions, but adding more of an editorial focus is still better than nothing. Discussions is a fun platform for a lot of users, but it also has the capacity to draw in a ton of editors to the wiki; promoting moderators who actually understand editing processes is a step in the right direction. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
8. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
9. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
10. Because voting requires user to edit, discussions mods being able to instruct how to do this would be very helpful. Also, they should be able to write talk page messages, sometimes warnings should be given this way, as well as ban notices. Except for those things, discussions mods should be expected to know anything else about editing. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:09, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. My point is entirely identical to the one I used for the Chat Moderator proposal. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. Same as what Leon said. Aya42 (talk) 20:51, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. Edits still shouldn’t be required. Acj1225 (talk)

Excluded Votes

1. i think that’s too many edits for discussions moderator. i do agree a d mod should be capable of answering editorial questions, but i’m not sure this edit count is the way. That’s a lot for just someone who will be moderating discussions, and i think a better alternative would be give new d mods a “crash course” on basic editing questions they may he asked. i’d 100% volunteer to train a new d mod on basic editing questions they’d be asked. President Autumn 22:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC) Vote changed.
2. I feel that the edit count is still too steep and it worries me that there was a lack of input from /d members in the discussion process, and those are who this affects the most --Laat the Survivor (talk) 18:28, May 17, 2019 (UTC) Vote Changed

Administrator

Current Standards

“The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

• You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
• You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.”

Proposed Requirement Changes

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

• You have made at least 5000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • OR if community focused, You have made at least 5000 discussion posts OR at least 10,000 discord posts.
  • Most Administrators are expected to display complete mastery of all facets of editing, and at least minimal understanding of backed functions.
• You have made at least 1000 discussion posts or You have made at least 2000 discord posts.
  • OR if community focused you have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) and display thorough understanding and mastery of basic and advanced editing.
• You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one year.
• You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/chat moderator, for a minimum of two months.
• You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
• Administrator candidates who are specialized in technical roles or purely editing (I.E. Handle CSS/Javascript, Work extensively with templates; especially more complex ones like infoboxes and navboxes, employ a bot for large scale editing, or perform critical backend and frontend maintenance edits without which the wiki could not continue to function) may circumvent the community specific requirements by making 500 edits in the user talkpage, article talk page, forum, and blog namespaces. Through this they are expected to demonstrate the same leadership/community interaction skills as candidates that are not purely editing focused.

Yes

1. We need admins that are familiar with all aspects of the wiki. That includes chat and discussions, both of which are generally neglected --Laat the Survivor (talk) 20:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. I agree with Laat. Acj1225 (talk)
3. The admin position includes rights which dictate both the editorial and social aspects of the wiki, and yet community engagement from a significant portion of the admin team is virtually non-existent. Without changing this the divide between the various avenues of the wiki will never close. I especially support the multiple ways a potential candidate could qualify, with users having the option of specializing but without being able to ignore virtually everything else. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:41, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
4. sysop is a leadership position on the wiki, and as such, they’re given access to chat and discussions tools. If they’re not familiar with these platforms on the wiki at least, then content moderator would be more suitable. You wouldn’t want a sysop who doesn’t know anything about discussions and/or chat, because then why would they want power over those, Content moderator gives almost all sysop editing powers without the need to be familiarized with the social aspects of the wiki. President Autumn 23:02, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
5. Saxhleel12 (talk)
6. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:07, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
7. The higher editing requirement is appropriate. Additionally, I would like to say that the idea that administrators should just hide in their holes all day and never interact with the community is baffling to me. Admins/bureaucrats are the first people that Wikia Staff contact if they need to reach out to a wiki; the expectation is that those people are involved enough with their own community that they can always be trusted to coordinate community projects and events as needed. On TES, we had a very, very nasty bit of drama in 2014 and 2015 stemming in large part from admins intentionally ignoring the social aspects of the site, despite fundamentally being community leaders. Upping community engagement solved that. The requirements proposed here are worded in such a way that you do not need to be a social butterfly to be an admin, if you have strong technical skills, but you still need to be able to interact with the other people on the wiki effectively, because you are, like it or not, the faces of the wiki. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
8. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
9. I like the technical clause. It's vague, but the cases it covers are vague to begin with. I am not entirely sure the 5k boundary is the right spot but it's not too far off. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. Wiki administrators should not be required to use discussions or chat. Why would you want to change the requirements such that solid wiki contributors like Jspoel would not qualify for this position? Aya42 (talk) 19:21, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. Once the Administrator and Bureaucrat roles are being sought, these sorts of prerequisites become more and more meaningless, as anyone can spam contributions without actually showing skill. I believe that there should be prerequisites, but they shouldn't be expounded upon by artificially raising the difficulty of gaining the rights, without necessarily focusing on the user's skill as a leader. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. I’m in agreement with Aya. Great Mara (talk) 22:41, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
4. As per Aya. Jgrsoto 18:55, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
5. This is a very strong no, most of the clauses are really problematic in my opinion. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:34, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. User:Fallout Engineer

Comments

I feel it important to note that users like Jspoel already qualify for the technically minded administrator clause due to their sheer knowledge and proficiency with the templates. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:45, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

"Particularly talented tech-minded individuals..." is too vague for a policy document. Criteria such as "must have 2000 edits" are black and white, you either have them or not, but who's to decide who's "particularly talented" or not? Aya42 (talk) 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

That's what a community vote is for. These things are inherently subjective. Including a statement like that anyway focuses the things that community members consider when casting their votes, so that these subjective considerations are not overshadowed by other matters. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

In reference to votes saying otherwise, I most definitely think that administrators should be forced to at least be familiar with /d and chat, especially if they’re going to have moderation power over the two platforms. It’s frankly ridiculous that this hasn’t been a requirement in the past. A leader should be familiar with all aspects of what they are entrusted to lead, and like it or not discussions and chat are part of the wiki. You wouldn’t want a content moderator who can’t edit, a chat mod who doesn’t chat, or a discussions moderator with no discussions posts. So why do we want admins that will more often than not fit into at least one of those descriptions without these requirements? Laat the Survivor (talk) 23:09, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, there currently doesn't exist a position which is the wiki-equivalent of a chatmod or dmod. Chatmods can ban users from chat, and dmods can block users from /d, but content mods can't block users from the wiki - only an admin can do that. So for a user who is only interested in the wiki, and wants to be able to block vandals, the administrator position is the lowest one which will allow them to do so.

If the content mods were allowed to block vandals, then I'd agree that the administrator position should be more akin to a composite of the requirements for chatmod, dmod and content mod. A user could opt to apply for one, two or all three of these positions, the latter effectively making them an administrator. However, that's not the way the wiki permissions are configured, and only Fandom can change that.

Furthermore, these edit/post requirements seem ridiculous. I mean, does one really have to have made thousands of edits/posts to have the common sense to delete/block a spammer advertising viagra or somesuch? Surely more moderators is better than fewer moderators. With more moderators, there's less work for each to do, and each can feel more comfortable taking a break for a while from what is ultimately an unpaid job. It logicially follows that lowering the required edit/post counts would lead to more applications than increasing them, so this change would ultimately seem detrimental to the wiki.

@bleep: Exactly what problem do you see currently with the wiki that this change would solve? Aya42 (talk) 14:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

The edit requirement is less about deleting obvious spam (which anyone can do) and more about being able to reliably make decisions about edge cases. Administrators cannot defer to other people; they are the ones to whom everyone on the wiki defers. They therefore need to have enough experience with confusing or difficult editorial situations to determine an effective course of action. An edit requirement is a good way to standardize this at a base level, —Atvelonis (talk) 16:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

@aya i don’t think the fact that content moderators cannot block is justification for allowing someone to run for administrator and wield power over certain areas of the wiki that they have no interest in. A content moderator can request a block from an admin if it comes to that. Sure, it’d definitely be more convenient for content moderators to have the blocking ability, but just because that’s not one of their tools, doesn’t justify giving someone power over something they’re not familiar with in the slightest and/or don’t like. also, in response to your argument about what does a post requirement do, i could make the same argument about what does an editing count requirement do. the post count is mostly about being integrated with the community even a little, and knowing how things work there. it also shows how someone requesting rights for that part of the wiki actually cares. President Autumn 20:57, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Current Standards

Unwritten, based on previous unspoken standards.

Proposed Requirement Changes

The minimum requirements for becoming an Bureaucrat are:

• Having previously held the position of Administrator for no less than six months.
• Having displayed an acute understanding of all facets of editing, all functions of the discussions board, and all aspects of the discord server and the community.
• Having displayed exemplary leadership skills and astute understanding of their role as an administrator.
• Possession of Administrator rights at time of application.
• In the event that there are 1 (one) or less active Bureaucrats, the community or active staff may elevate one or more users they feel will successfully carry out the role of Bureaucrat, regardless of whether they currently meet the base requirements.

Yes

1. Aya42 (talk) 19:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. User:Fallout Engineer
4. Acj1225 (Acj1225)
5. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:43, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
6. i vote yes with the hopes that the new admin prequesites go through, so that there can at least be sysops who care for discussions and chat. President Autumn ,
7. Saxhleel12 (talk)
8. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:08, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
9. No objections here. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
10. Bovinejeff (talk)
11. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
12. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
13. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:09, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Retroactive Clause

Should any of the above measures pass, staff members who do not meet the current minimal guidelines for their position will not be subjected to automatic rights removal.

Yes

1. The community already voted them in, so they have the right to stay regardless of policy changes. If the community feels as if an existing rights-holder should be held to a higher standard, then that is what reconfirmation requests are for. ^寧靜 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. Like Aya, I think there could be more clarity on what represents sufficient time, see the effects of similarly vague clauses such as "with all deliberate speed" for instances on where that can go wrong. On the whole, however, I agree with Leon. Existing rights holders should not be at risk of losing positions earned under older requirements. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:48, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. per leon. President Autumn 23:05, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
4. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:09, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
5. - FDekker ^talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
6. Laat the Survivor (talk) 16:45, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
7. as per Leon - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:10, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. This will just encourage spamming, and something as vague as "sufficient time as is reasonable" has no place in a policy document. Aya42 (talk) 20:03, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. Again, vague. And it may very well lead to boosting. Also see points above about admin requirements. Great Mara (talk) 22:44, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. if a yes vote in the yes section is a double positive, isn't a no vote in the no section a double negative? Whatever. My vote is no. Is that clear enough?Fudgenuts (talk) 21:40, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
4. I agree with the first part, but am unsure of the 'sufficient time' part. Users should never have their rights removed retroactively. The user was elected to the position, that position remains unchanged. I don't know what sufficient time means, but I don't think there should be any time limit whatsoever. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:20, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. User:Fallout Engineer

Excluded Votes

1. Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC) Vote unclear, indicates yes but placed in no section.

Comments

It's unclear what this clause means. I assumed voting "yes" means that existing rights holders would have to do attempt to meet the new criteria, and "no" meant they didn't. Aya42 (talk) 20:14, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

It's essentially what Leon is saying. They've already been voted into the position by the community, and these changes aren't going to subject them to automatic removal (this is a retroactive clause to protect our current right holders from mob mass reconfirmation that might happen should they not satisfy the new requirements.)---bleep196- (talk) 20:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

So that implies that voting "no" means that users will be "subject to automatic removal of rights"? How do I vote for "existing rights holders have no obligation to meet new requirements"? Aya42 (talk) 20:36, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Much like Aya has stated, I am abstaining from this portion of the vote until it is clear what exactly the options mean Laat the Survivor (talk) 23:11, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is a fairly straightforward clause... If you have somehow been made "invalid" by any of these votes (i.e., having less edits/whatever than is now required for your rank), you won't be forced to lose your rank until you accumulate those edits/whatever. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:10, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

General Comments

The general consensus I have gotten so far from the votes is fairly positive. A couple notes I want to make and potential changes to the policies. You can specifically ping me on discord with your thoughts, or leave a comment here in regards to what I'm about to say, so that I will know how it will effect the currently submitted votes.

• There seems to be a split among the userbase towards whether or not Chat Moderators should be required to have a set number of minimal edits in their repertoire before running. Like the /d moderator before I submitted those changes, a number of users feel that training chat moderators in the basics of editing would be sufficient, and that a minimal editing requirements is unnecessary. I felt, when I introduced this forum, that Chat and /d moderators should have identical editing requirements. While historically we've had a minimal editing requirement, this was when the chat was directly attached to the wiki at the hip. This is no longer the case, and while I, frankly, would like to see better connection to the wiki from discord, forcing chat moderators to make edits seems counterproductive to the role. With the new numerical post requirements, I feel we substitute that hard set minimal requirement that editing used to provide. I feel like if we train our chat moderators, the majority of whom currently have a good handle of basic editing knowledge to begin with, we eliminate an arbitrary hard quantity requirement and introduce a qualitative requirement.

• Aya has brought up a point in regards to the technical clause with regards to administrators. I've been thinking about it and I would like to reword it to be more clear, and give it an objective requirement which would substitute for the Community requirement. See bullet point below. I'm going to refer to this clause as the Jspoelestra clause.
  • Administrator candidates who are specialized in technical roles or purely editing (I.E. Handle CSS/Javascript, Work extensively with templates; epspecially more complex ones like infoboxes and navboxes, employ a bot for large scale editing, or perform critical backend and frontend maintenance edits without which the wiki could not continue to function) may circumvent the community specific requirements by making 500 edits in the user talkpage, article talk page, forum, and blog namespaces. Through this they are expected to demonstrate the same leadership/community interaction skills as candidates that are not purely editing focused.

• I'd also like to reword the retroactive clause, as its poorly written. Its important to note that the vast majority of staff members that would be affected by these proposals meet or exceed the requirements currently proposed. If users prefer the edited technical clause, all current administrators will meet or exceed the requirements.
  • Should any of the above measures pass, staff members who do not meet the current minimal guidelines for their position **will not** be subjected to automatic rights removal.

Please leave your thoughts below this comment.---bleep196- (talk) 18:45, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

After some discussion with other users in discord, and the way the votes appear to be leaning on certain subjects, I've decided to implement the above changes as the final measures on the forum. I will be leaving talkpage messages for everyone who has voted so far. Rather than the 1000 talkpage, article talkpage, forum, and blog and blog post namespace edits, I have decided to reduce the requirement to 500. This is due primarily to the fact that the frequency of edits in those categories outside of participation in major projects, periods of high forum activity, and more frequent blog posts has become severely reduced in recent years due to the ease of communication provided by our adjacent community platform. This requirement may still be steep, but 1000 discussion posts is a fairly lofty bar as well. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:34, May 20, 2019 (UTC)