Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-4845243-20150228004311/@comment-1693968-20150228232052

These proposals do sound a bit difficult to meet, but I guess that we do have plenty of users who meet those requirements. I'll just voice my opinion that I'm cool with 100-150 forum edits. Although since this is a purely social right, like chat moderator, I think it should have the same mainspace requirements as chat moderator (which I believe are none). No ban/block for awhile is an obvious one. Two months sounds ideal.

We do not give official talk page warnings, although that's something I really think we should implement. However, I think it should be that multiple warnings for any offense disqualify the candidate, rather than a single warning for a specific offense. Here's my reasoning: not all warnings are fair, as much as I hate to admit it. I often disagree with warnings, especially when it relates to spam. Some people have a very extreme definition of spam, so extreme that many of us administrators would be considered spammers. Normally bans are not made on that basis, but I very often see warnings for it. I don't think a single, questionable warning given two and half months ago should disqualify a candidate. Also, I think that violating any part of the policy would also violate my trust in that candidate. I find it kind of odd that only spam and vandalism would disqualify someone. Spam isn't even considered that bad of a violation. I would consider it much worse if they made suggestive jokes or personally attacked another user.

There's my thoughts. Someone remind me to vote if we change this from a discussion to a vote.