Forum:Proposal - User Rights Changes

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Proposal - User Rights Changes

Following this previous discussion, this vote is called to determine several changes to user rights requests and requirements.

Poll

Poll finished on 5:45 am April 13, 2013 (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.

Proposal 1

The first proposal will amend the requirements for the moderator position to a simple combination of patroller and chat moderator rights and eliminates the request for moderator (not the position). For example, a user holding patroller rights will be able to apply for the chat moderator position the same way a regular user could. Conversely, chat moderators would be able to request Patroller rights from a Bureaucrat the same way a regular user would, provided they meet the requirements. This vote also amends the requirements of patroller and chat moderator to include a cooling-off period between requests.

The new minimum requirements for patroller would be as follows:

• You have made at least 250 edits in the article, category 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.

The new minimum requirements for chat moderator would be as follows:

• You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category 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 (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.

Poll 1

Should we amend the moderator to the simple combination of patroller and chat Moderator, and treat rights requests as such?

Yes

1. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. Yeah.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 22:54, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. --Skire (talk) 23:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
5. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
6. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
7. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:00, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
8. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 03:12, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
9. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
10. ^{"Anything, for the family"} 05:25, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
11. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
12. When I first proposed this it was crushed, now it's almost unanimous... I've got half a mind to vote no just out of spite X(
    Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
13. ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
14.  The Gunny  
15. I was initially conflicted about this, I guess the real difference is that chat moderators can gain patroller rights without needing a second vote, which I guess makes sense. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
16. I think this will help. Bring Down the Sky (talk) 23:41, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
17. Make it so. 00:58, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
18. Suprised no one messaged me for this. -- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 17:35, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. Richie9999 (talk) 23:03, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. I love the proposal, it looks and sounds great. I really think it would fix the problem...yet somebody tacked on that last sentence. I don't agree with that. If someone is qualified, there's no need to make them wait. Since, both rights held by moderators are on completely different parts of the wiki, one doesn't need to prove themselves at one job to show they'll be good with the other. 03:42, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
2. Were it not for that tacked on bit about waiting for 2 months after achieving one set of rights to run for the next set, I'd be all for this. However, I feel that it is unnecessary, Stripes took the words right out of my mouth. Richie9999 (talk) 03:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
3. ^^^^ TheMcChicken (talk) 04:32, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
4. Stripes has the right idea. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 03:40, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The second proposal is contingent on the passing of the first proposal. Should proposal 1 pass, should we keep the moderator title for users with both patroller and chat moderator rights?

Should this poll pass, users who hold both rights, of which there are currently three, will remain as moderator on the administrator page, as will the button on user pages. The moderator requirements will be removed from the administrator page.

If this proposal does not pass, users that hold both user rights will be displayed in both the patroller and chat moderator groups on the administrator page. User 'buttons' on pages of users with both rights would read both 'patroller' and 'chat moderator'.

If this proposal passes and proposal 1 does not, all will remain with the status quo.

Poll 2

Should the moderator title remain on both the administrator page and user page for users that have achieved patroller as well as chatmod rights?
Please note that a no vote on Poll 1 will be counted as a yes vote on this poll

Yes

1. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. Yeah. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 22:55, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. Richie9999 (talk) 23:04, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
5. --Skire (talk) 23:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
6. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
7. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
8. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 03:13, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
9. Helps a lot with keeping things organized. 03:58, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
10. TheMcChicken (talk) 04:33, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
11. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:16, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
12. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
13. A given. ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
14.  The Gunny  
15. It's just simpler to say moderator than have the two badges. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
16. Seems reasonable enough. Energy X 17:57, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. *shrugs*
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
2. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:10, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The third proposal will increase the minimum mainspace edit requirement for Patroller to 500 from 250. This proposal is not contingent on the passing of either proposal 1 or proposal 2.

The new minimum requirements for patroller will be as follows:

• You have made at least 500 edits in the article, category 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.

Please note that if both Poll 1 and Poll 3 pass, both changes will be implemented.

Poll 3

Should we increase the edit requirement for patroller to 500 mainspace (from 250)?

Yes

1. I would like to see more community commitment from users who seek patroller rights.^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. Agree with Follower. It shouldn't be easy to acquire authority, and it should be a work-in-progress to keep such a privilege. 01:01, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
3. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:12, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. No, I feel the BCs are effective judges of whether or not a user is ready for patroller rights, increasing the requirement is something I see as unnecessary. Richie9999 (talk) 23:06, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. A completely unnecessary change. --Skire (talk) 23:12, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. Although this may be a Fallout wiki, it is not governed by the same rules that govern the Fallout world. There is no magical edit that results in a Perk/Skill screen appearing in front of their eyes and a requsite bump in ability. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. I feel that bureaucrats can handle this on their own. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 03:14, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. I don't see why we should do this. Too much weight already is put on edit counts. Quality over quantity. 03:42, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. TheMcChicken (talk) 04:34, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
7. It's all on the BC for this one. It's their choice, their decision. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
8. Unneccesary when patroller is given out at the discretion and approval of a BC. ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
9. You should be able to judge an editor well enough with the current amount of edits, and I know that I at least had more than 250 edits anyway when I applied. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
10. Agreed, we need to have better edits than more edits. Energy X 17:57, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
11. Kingclyde (talk) It's the patroller position which we as BC's give on a case by case basis as it is. Not to mention that there is NO new game out currently for anyone to really get 500 mainspace edits without someone fabricating some newfangled project that fixes spacing or something. This in my opinion is unneeded.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:55, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
12. No. BCs can handle this. -- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 17:40, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
13. I don't see it actually doing what it intends; anyone who's got an ambiguous 250 edits is just going to do another ambiguous 250 edits. More, it's a system that effectively punishes anyone who prefers to compile as much data as possible before making an edit, but also wants to be a patroller. Why set something like that up? Aristatide (talk) 23:25, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm on the fence on this, I feel like our BC's are already effective judges at determining when someone is ready for patrolling rights. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. As Bears has said, I feel like the BC's can judge when someone is ready to receive Patroller rights, and I will leave it in their hands. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. I agree with what Bleep and Bears said above. The BCs know when someone is willing, and capable of Patroller. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 4

The fourth proposal will increase the minimum mainspace edit requirement for chat moderator to 100 from 50. This proposal is not contingent on the passing of proposals 1, 2, or 3.

The new minimum requirements for chat moderator will be as follows:

• You've made at least 100 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 100).
• You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator (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.
• You have not made a failed (chat) moderator rights request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.

Please note that if both proposal 1 and proposal 4 pass, both changes will be implemented.

Poll 4

Should we increase the edit requirement for chat moderator to 100 mainspace (from 50)?

Yes

1. For users who are usually the first line for new users, 100 edits shows more knowledge of article editing that is needed to explain things to new users. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. 50 edits is ridiculously low. This is much better. --Skire (talk) 23:12, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. Unlike other positions I think chat moderator has a bit to much power for someone to have so few edits. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
5. ^ I am going to have to agree with Bleep on this. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:18, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. I'd like to see it higher than 100 personally. 01:02, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. I'm voting yes, but based on my competetors in the No department, I don't think it really matters what I do.-- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 17:43, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
8. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:09, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Although this may be a Fallout wiki, it is not governed by the same rules that govern the Fallout world. There is no magical edit that results in a Perk/Skill screen appearing in front of their eyes and a requsite bump in ability. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. And this will achieve what exactly? Mainspace edits are only there to show at least a minor dedication to the site, even then a lot of that is judged in a request by the community, 50 has sufficed so far and has not required any change. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:02, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
3. I see the chat mod as a CHAT mod, they're not wiki side, they're chat side. That's where their duties lay. While it's nice to see editing dedication on their part I don't see it as necessary, and regardless, they have to pass a community vote to get those powers. Richie9999 (talk) 00:39, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
4. 50 is plenty to show commitment to the wiki. It might not seem like much to big-time editors, but that really takes a lot of dedication for a new user. The community vote will weed out anyone who isn't worthy of the position. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 03:16, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. 50 is fine, 50 edits is good for a wiki like this. TheMcChicken (talk) 04:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. The community will know if someone is willing and capable to moderate chat, without some edit requirement. I have faith in our community. And when we think of it, the edit requirement is only there so they can attempt to help someone who enters chat with edit problems. I'm sure 50 more edits won't supply them with some kind of extra level edit knowledge. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
7. The reason the 50 non-mainspace count was added was because a chatmod needs to have some community presence apart from regular editing, and this new threshold fails to account for that.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
8. Per everything else. ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
9.  The Gunny  
10. Kingclyde (talk)

Neutral

1. This one is just off. The ability to moderate chat has no connection to editing encyclopedia articles, it does not show abilities or dedication, that can be measured in chat, when they're actually working at their job. I don't see why there is an edit requirement at all, so I will remain neutral, unless an additional nea is needed to strike this down. 03:42, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
2. I understand wanting to have knowledgeable people in chat, but I don't know if another 50 edits would really make a difference. I don't think I'm in chat enough to weigh in on this either way. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. I don't know. If it'd be non-article edits, I'd (probably) vote yes. Energy X 17:57, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 5

The fourth proposal will increase the minimum main namespace edit requirement for administrator requests to 1,250 from 1,000. This proposal is not contingent on any of the previous proposals.

The new minimum requirements for administrator will be as follows:

• You have made at least 1,250 edits in the article, category 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/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.

Poll 5

Should we increase the edit requirement for administrator to 1,250 mainspace (from 1000)?

Yes

1. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. A very trivial change, 1750 is more like it. However, I suppose it's better than the status quo... --Skire (talk) 23:11, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. TheMcChicken (talk) 04:38, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. As SD says, it's still too little but better than nothing.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
6. If they can hit 1000, they can go that extra mile to hit 1250. 1500 would be better imho though. Unless of course, they're in a rush to gain such a position. 01:04, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:14, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Although this may be a Fallout wiki, it is not governed by the same rules that govern the Fallout world. There is no magical edit that results in a Perk/Skill screen appearing in front of their eyes and a requsite bump in ability. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. While I feel an administrator should have at the very least 1000 edits, this is more of an arbitrary limit, we appoint administrators based on important niche skills that we need to maintain or improve the wiki as a whole. Users who have displayed significant skills in terms of editing should not be limited by such an arbitrary concept if they want to continue to aid the wiki at a higher privilege level. The emphasis should not be on the quantity of said edits, but instead on the Quality of that persons edits. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. I feel that increasing the amount of edits needed is unnecessary, in my opinion, 1,000 edits shows a good degree of dedication to the wiki, and I agree with bleep in regards to the importance of the quality of an individual's edits. Richie9999 (talk) 00:31, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
4. I've never understood why some people have "personal quotas" that a user must reach before they will vote for them. What is the point of even having a minimum if people want them to have 600-1000 more edits than that? It's fine where it is. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 03:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. Completely trivial...I have doubts anybody with 1,00 edits will be voted in as admin, and adding such a relatively small amount doesn't change that. 03:42, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. I agree with what Bleep said. And also, again, I have faith in the community in their voting in of users, without some extra edit requirements. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
7. Unneccessary change. ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
8. While I have certain thresholds I prefer to see, those are my preferences that I don't expect others to use. I don't believe that changing the minimum requirements is necessary. The Gunny  
9. I'd doubt an admin request vote would still pass with more edits. Like the patroller, he/she needs to show dedication by making better quality edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energy X (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
10. Kingclyde (talk)Quality not quantity is what matters to me to be honest.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:57, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I believe 1000 and 1250 shows great dedication but I also have my doubts. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:21, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
2. Again, I can understand the want for an increase, but I don't think it's enough to really make a difference. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Last one. Currently, users are eligible for rights removal after 9 months of inactivity. This proposal will increase the time period for rights removal to one year. This proposal is not contingent on any of the previous proposals.

The new definition for rights removal will be as follows:

In the event that a bureaucrat, administrator or moderator has been inactive for an extended period of time, they will have their user rights removed by the bureaucrats and restored by a community vote upon a return to constructive editing.

• • Definition of inactive is six months of a lack of editing.
  • Definition of inactive for rights removal is one year of a lack of editing.

Poll 6

Should we increase the definition of inactive for rights removal to one year (from 9 months)?

Yes

1. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 22:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. Richie9999 (talk) 23:07, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:56, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
5. 01:05, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. --Skire (talk) 23:11, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. No reason has been given for this change. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. I have decided after more consideration that there is no need for such a extension on the current policy. 9 months is sound and seems to have been fair enough to the inactive users. I don't believe this warrants any change as of now. --Skire (talk) 00:24, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
3. Why? The current system hasn't even been implemented long enough for there to be any evidence of issues, why are we voting on a recent policy change that lacks any kind of fundamental flaw? 03:42, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
4. 9 is fine. TheMcChicken (talk) 04:39, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
5. Sorry to say, but if I don't see you in 9 months I am going to expect the worst of it. "'The One, The Only, The Gunslinger!" 05:22, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
6. Nine months is already a good buffer period, adding an extra three months won't achieve anything other than further issues if they return during the extension, noted before in the previous discussion on user rights removal due to inactivity. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 10:54, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
7. Absolutely not. No matter how busy somebody is, they already have 9 months to drop by and get themselves involved even if just for a couple of hours, they don't need 3 more.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
8. Considering we've hardly even seen this used I don't know how anyone can think it might need amending if it's never been applied... ^Talk 23:36, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
9. Nine months should be more than enough time to decide if someone is active or not. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:45, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
10. There is still possibility to remind the user... Energy X 17:57, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
11. Kingclyde (talk)They are reminded on their talk page. If no response is received in nine months, it is logical to assume they won't be returning.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:01, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
12. Not unless they are in the hospital or on deployment due to military service. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:18, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm just not quite sure as of yet. 9 months is a longer time than most think, and plenty of time for some notice to be given of where a user has gone, yet you never want any user that has been entrusted with extra user rights to lose them. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
2. 1, 4, 7, 12. The numbers have always been arbitrary. There is no fundamental difference between 6, 9, and 12 month's inactivity. We define inactivity as 6 months, yet arbitrarily wait another 3 months to officially act on it. This whole policy is arbitrary. I'll stay out of the exact definition of inactivity and abide by whatever terms you all decide on. The Gunny  
3. I do agree that some users should be removed from rights if they are away too long. It obviously shows that their dedication to the wiki has diminished. But I might have to think this over.-- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 17:47, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I see there not much support for the raise to 500 main namespace edits for patroller rights yet. I suggested that change because I've declined a few requests myself in the recent past from users who had considerately less than 500 edits. I feel I need more to see proven there's commitment and work effort. Jspoel 23:20, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I can see how in this situation it would be optimal for the written requirements to match bureaucrat expectations. However, I personally feel 250 edits is enough to show editing competency and frequency. There are those that still may be denied at 500+, since I believe quality is far more important than quantity, especially when determining the skilfulness of an editor. --Skire (talk) 23:23, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

J, I trust you to make a decision. If you want to have a target of 500 edits thats fine. However, I dont see why I should be preventing you from saying someone is ready at 499... or any other number - As I say in my votes, at edit 500 users dont get a magial boost in skills and a perk. I voted for you to have the power to decide because I trust you to make the decision right and see no reason why I should get in the way. Agent c

In regards to other areas, I think this focus on edit count is a bit silly. There seems to be a consensus that Tezzla, for example was not a particularly proficient editor, but has an edit count greater than most of the admins (and greater than many of them combined!) No actual reason has been given for these tweaks, and there is no proof to suggest any of these tweaks will result in better people. Agent c (talk) 23:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of rights from 9 months to a year, read my motivation for that on Gunny's talkpage. Nine months is too soon. Jspoel 23:46, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

J, with due respect, this is something that has been sprung on us completely unexpected... It wasn't even discussed in the other forum at all. I don't believe we've actually had an opportunity to see the rule actually used yet. Agent c (talk) 23:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you that it's all a bit sudden because I didn't discuss it. But take some time to think about this before voting on extending the inactive time. I've been thinking about it for a few weeks now. Now consider Guardian of the Wastes. Strictly taken he's been 9 months inactive. I personally don't feel it's right/time yet to remove his rights. He deserves some more credit. And then GhostAvatar. 1,5 month before he loses his rights? It's too soon in my opinion anyway, I just don't have a good feeling about 9 months. Jspoel 00:21, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't love taking rights away from anyone, but their long-term inactivity has warranted it necessary. I have no doubt that, upon a return to active editing, they can easily reapply for their rights and reattain them without trouble. --Skire (talk) 00:28, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Gav basically abandoned us and left us in the lurch when it comes to chatbot and the planned notices section (which has meant we havent been able to remove the restriction on clearing TPs), I'm not particularly inclined to support a rule designed to just benefit him. Agent c (talk) 00:34, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Chad. Especially since Ghost still actively talks to his Vault friends over Facebook, meaning that he is indeed still around and with free time and access to use the internet from where he's at. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody please address the concerns of now three users about the final sentence in Proposal 1? It was barely touched upon in the discussion forum and is in my opinion, illogical per the statement in my vote. 18:37, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I added the caveat proposed by agent c after discussion with Gunny and Js. It is similar to the requirement on the administrators. Considering this is an issue I may spin it off as a separate proposal. Also, it was discussed in the precious forum and several users appeared to agree, hence it's inclusion. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 20:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

As Follower indicated, The 2 month cooldown is designed to mirror the cooldown already existing at Administrator level. This is standardising it, and giving the community an opportunity to see how one set of rights are used before the others are issued. Agent c (talk) 21:18, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

You can't compare the jump in power between moderator and admin to the jump between patroller and chat mod and vice versa. Administrators are held to a much higher standard and have far greater responsibilities, hence the observation period, this is not so with the moderator rights. As I stated before, in addition, the two components of moderator are unrelated and on different parts of the site, so one shouldn't have to watch a patroller's edits for a full two months to give him chat mod rights, and vice versa. 22:02, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

However, the way you act as patroller is almost certainly going to give me clues to decide if I want you as a chat mod, and vice versa. I can how you communicate with other users in an official capacity, and see if you're responsible with the initial rights given. The bump from moderator to Admin isn't as much as most people think... They've already had a limited right to ban, so the only real new powers is the ability to delete stuff, and promote temp mods (plus edit how stuff in the the wikia game guides app appears). Given that people seem to wait about this period anyway, I don't see how its a big deal. Agent c (talk) 22:12, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

In a hypothetical, if there is a user who is trusted enough to have a reasonable chance at becoming chat mod, and they frequent chat in one of the time periods where we need one, we would make them a mod under most circumstances. However, 4 weeks ago they were given patroller rights, does it really make sense to make the user, and more importantly, the people in chat at that moment, to wait another 4 weeks, when we have a perfectly capable user who's ready to moderate? It sounds like to me we would be punishing that user, and our chat-goer's, because of a positive event 4 weeks prior. 01:51, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  user rights are neither a punnishment nor a reward. They are a request to do more work. I see no problem with making sure someone is able to handle their current workload before increasing it. Agent c (talk) 02:05, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Considerations

As I was the one to initiate this forum, I would like to address as many of the comments and concerns as I can.

For Proposal 1, it is essentially in the same form as discussed in the previous forum. The 'caveat' as we call it was something requested by Chad. It received support from few users and little (if any) opposition in said forum. After revisions an considerations by both Js and Gunny with no opposition from either of them I believed it warranted inclusion.

• In my opinion, the waiting period solves two potential problems posed by the passing of proposal 1. First, it eliminates the potential of repeated user rights requests. Secondly, as 'not enough time passed' seems to be a common theme of recent requests, it seeks to eliminate this concern as well.

For Proposal 3, this was discussed in the forum and again, general support was given amongst users who commented on it. Js has stated that his personal requirements were set higher; I thought it fair to make it formal and official.

• Although our BC's are an effective judge of skill, care must still be taken. 250 edits in my opinion is not enough for a user to be able to judge 'correct' versus 'incorrect' edits (essentially the patroller function in layman's terms).

After a discussion with Js, Proposal 4 was included as well. It was briefly discussed in the forum prior.

• The issue of community participation here is null in my opinion. Clearly a user with no community participation would not be elected regardless. Chat moderators are, in essence, the first faces encountered by new users in chat. Editing questions are often relayed to them, and in my opinion 100 edits minimum shows a far greater comprehension of editing than 50.

Proposal 5 was not discussed in the forum. It was discussed between myself and Js (and I believe Gunny had some input here as well).

• I personally think a more drastic change here is needed (maybe 1500, if not 2000). Administrators are generally looked upon to have three qualities that set them apart (leadership ability, community presence, and editing proficiency). The tools given to admins are strong on the editing side; in my opinion a greater show of dedication and proficiency is needed as a formal policy.

Proposal 6 was, I admit, sprung upon most users. It was discussed between Js and Gunny and relayed to me.

• Although the 9 month window has not yet been imposed, there are users who are approaching or have exceeded this time frame, such as Gav and GOTW. It comes down to whether you think their rights should be retained or not.

Some other things

There are two other things I would like all users to consider in these proposals, as well as their everyday wiki conduct. Firstly, both 'chat' side and 'wiki' side users with extra rights have similar responsibilities in some ways. Each side is looked at for leadership, whether in chat, community events, or editing. A strict separation between chat and wiki (which seems to be a common opinion) serves only to divide us as a community.

Secondly, additional user rights (or the lack thereof) should not be looked upon as a reward or punishment towards any user. Users with additional rights are given these rights because they can use the tools given to them effectively. To paraphrase Saint Pain, if you do not see yourself as a servant of the wiki, this is not for you. If anything, taking on extra rights makes your life harder.

Thanks everyone for voting and contributing your views. Your time is very much appreciated. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 10:44, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Reward: "something given or received in recompense for worthy behavior or in retribution for evil acts". Like it or not, user rights are given at the user's requests, but only if they have proven themselves worthy and capable, thus user rights are a reward. This goes back to my post in the comments above that this 2 month waiting has the potential to essentially deprive users of their reward, because they had received one only a few weeks prior. To address your two main points defended this "caveat" in Proposal 1. What's the problem with repeated rights requests (I'm not talking about the required gap between failed requests, I'm okay with that)? Secondly, the "more time is needed" you're citing, I have only seen in one user's plight, and that was being said because of too short a break between failed requests, not successful ones like we're talking about here. 14:32, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

User rights are specifically defined not as a reward in policy, nor are they a reward in fact. Your definition there actually agrees with this as they are not in recompense - they are not compensation, nor are they a payment in return for something.

They merely convey the ability to do more work, at the invtiation of more scrutiny.

As for what is the problem with it, we don't on day 1 of patroller or CM how they're going to handle their few newfound responsibilities. Why is it appropriate for a moderator to wait 2 months before seeking their next bump, but noone else? There is no practical difference. Agent c (talk) 14:44, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on edit counts

When I, as a bc looks at user rights requests, not only do I look at the amount of edits a user makes but the quality. If I open their contributions page and they are only 1kb and 3kb changes, those are minor changes. I am skeptical and really review them (possible achievement boosting that skated past me). If they are larger edit sizes that means they were fixing bug reports, adding location info or taking part in projects. That is what's important. Patroller I admit is just rollback and the editcount shouldn't be crazy high to get it. That's my opinion. Same for chat mod. Anyways back to work.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:08, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

This is sort of the concern that made me pop my head up over the lurker's wall. It seems to me if you can't get a feel for quality of a user's edits after 250, you're not going to get it any more if they are submitting 500 or 1000. If you're staring at an application going "Well mostly what I see here is about three hundred and five occasions on which they corrected a missing or misplaced comma, I have no idea if they have any sense of what's appropriate beyond that," if you increase the limit to 500, anyone whose patterns of edits is like that is just going to do another several hundred fixings of punctuation. (Example picked because it's a valuable and worthwhile service, but a bit opaque in terms of judging by.)

It seems to me this particular proposal is trying to get improved quality by mandating improved quantity and that seldom goes well. If it's really that hard to gauge if someone's got a solid grasp of the wiki guidelines (and I admit I spent fifteen minutes trying to figure out if voting on these proposals was open to everyone and I'm still not entirely sure) just from edits, then you might want to consider going to an entirely different solution. Maybe some sort of test with example 'articles' people need to correct? Aristatide (talk) 23:28, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

That's my point. Increased quantity does not mean quality at all. Right now we are in between games and no one can achieve a crazy high edit count in the main space without someone creating another project that may or may not be needed. In my opinion the edit counts are fine as they are.--Kingclyde (talk) 01:00, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Why the big deal about edit counts?

I have to ask why are we making a big deal about edit counts? Exactly what improvement do people expect to see?

Believe it or not, at 500/1000/1250 edits a box does not flash before the users eyes, offering a magical boost int their skills and a perk. An edit count has no direct link with editing skill or suitability for any role. People with low counts can have greater skills than those who have been editing here forever.

Lastly on this, I want you to consider this user

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

At 8 thousand article edits this user has more edits than our patrollers and moderators combined - even when a few admins are included he comes out on top.

Yet he was rejected for admin no less than 4 times, and is now permanently banned. Agent c (talk) 10:57, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position. Those edit counts are just a number pulled out of the air. But there has to be some threshold. Devil's advocate: If edit counts have less importance than we currently attach to them, then why do we have them at all? Why don't we let an editor with 5 edits apply for extra rights? The Gunny   15:18, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

There does have to be some threshold, and have value as a psychologically important level, I dont see any gain from changing them at this stage; there isnt even a suggestion that this will result in better candidates. Agent c (talk) 15:52, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thresholds are important, but I agree with Agent C. Changing it won't make our Administrator candidates better, only more determined to get a higher edit count. Our emphasis should be on special skills with administrators, (I.E. being able to handle a bot, knowing your way around templates, etc.) ---bleep196- (talk) 17:07, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. They're called system operators for a reason. The Gunny   20:35, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Who was the person? Bring Down the Sky (talk) 23:38, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Tezzla Cannon. Agent c (talk) 23:49, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Ahh yes. Tezzla. A perfect example of where quality supersedes quantity. There does have to be some threshold though. After all the opposition to increasing them I decided to look at some other wikis and see their requirements. Many don't have admin requirements at all, and it seems to work okay. They do however seem to have a higher turnover rate of admins and more admins who were stripped of their rights. I don't think the community needs any more drama, and ensuring some more dedication in the form of edit counts doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 00:02, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how much extra "Dedication" does 50/250 edits show? How does an extra 50/250 edits reduce drama? On this scale Tezzla was clearly more dedicated than almost anyone who has participated in this forum. If you've worked this wiki long enough and consistent enough to meet the timing/activity requirements,, I submit that there is nothing an extra 250 edits proves in the way of dedication. Same with an extra 50 article edits. Agent c (talk) 00:54, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "dedication" is not something that can be accurately expressed in a quantity. Several uesrs I can think of show a lot of dedication, but their editcount is not very high. It's just my personal belief that steeper minimum requirements will help provide better applicants in general and a smaller chance of rejection/disappointment. At any rate, I have my personal requirements that I use and so the minimum requirements of the wiki have no significance to me when it comes to making my own decision on applications. --Skire (talk) 01:05, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Right now we are in between games and honestly we really shouldn't see alot of requests for adminship. Mod,chat mod and patroller sure but as far as admins go we have enough for now until Fallout 4 comes out. Personally I think the edit counts are fine as of current. In my opinion it's just a silly thing to keep adding more and more edits to the edit count just to make it seem like someone is dedicated. "There is more to this wiki than just editing" as was told by people during my bc request.--Kingclyde (talk) 01:10, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Poll is officially closed, I expect we'll see a bureaucrat decision in the next little while. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 07:42, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your participation in the poll. The page is now locked for your safety and protection. The appropriate changes were made. Once again thanks for the community effort.--Kingclyde (talk) 08:03, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

For the record, only the first two proposals pass, the rest doesn't. Most significant change is elimination of the moderator request. The position stays. Jspoel 14:15, April 13, 2013 (UTC)