Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-4845243-20150228004311/@comment-25995065-20150228020714

Madkatmaximus wrote: Bourgeoisie wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Bourgeoisie wrote: Benboy755 wrote: Same as patroller. Requirements for patroller are already stupid. Patroller is merely a couple extra tools for editing in less-common ways, yet you guys have it go through a community request and voting process, which is waaaay more extensive for such a minuscule user right. Well, it makes sense to have an edit requirement for patrollers, don't you think? And pretty much anyone who runs for patroller gets it, as they only need ten supports.

Edit requirement, sure. Most wikis do that. Going 6 weeks without a chat ban or block? Block is a bit more understandable, but chat ban? Not really... Chat does not have anything to do with the wiki. This is what prevented me from getting patroller rights. It actually does - Let's say if someone is a strong editor and behaves well on mainspace, but behaves badly and is banned frequently on chat. No matter how good of an editor they were, I wouldn't want someone like that with patroller rights. But what is the downside to that? There is none. It's just preventing them from further contributing to the wiki. Patroller rights can really do no damage to a wiki more than a standard editor. Maybe moving files to bad names, but even that's a stretch. Even if someone wanted to do harm with rollback, there are scripts such as Twinkle that would allow any user to do exactly that, rollback rights or not. Being banned recently seems like more of a reason to oppose a request, not a restriction on RFRs to disallow requests from recently-banned users altogether. But anyways this is an issue to discuss elsewhere. Back on topic...