Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-24718406-20150721001230/@comment-5381241-20150721225137

FortressOfNight wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote:

TheShadowAssassin wrote: I believe that there should be an edit requirement for Chat Moderator. I also believe that it should be raised to 100 edits, with 50 of those being mainspace. I think, personally, that if you have ~100 edits on the wiki, then that shows that you can connect with the community outside of chat and that you have a higher level of dedication towards improving the wiki as a whole. The edit requirement will also help to deter less-dedicated users from requesting Chat Moderator, therefore resulting in fewer crappy chat moderators (which is good for those who feel as if we have too many moderators in general). I can't argue too much against 100 edits generally, since it could help you know the community more, but half of them mainspace? Why? That's absolutely unrelated to chat, even more than a general edit requirement. As noted earlier on in the thread, there's a 2 month requirement already, and unless you're blind and stupid you'll end up figuring out there's a non-chat part of the wiki and likely look around it anyway, if not edit. Luna was totally capable of being a moderator, was familiar with the community, but needed to get 75 edits to put up here RFR, which she did in a legitimately way, but people were neutraling/opposing her first RFR because they thought she spammed her way there. Regardless of whether that's true or not, the edit requirement itself impeded upon her RFR, by no fault of her own. There's no justification for that kind of thing. And if it's 50 mainspace edits, then a good lot of current moderators likely wouldn't meet that. I don't understand why you'd want that? Anybody can easily spam 100 edits on a wall, forum, blogs, etc. That doesn't prove dedication. With 50 mainspace edits, like I said, it will help to deter less-dedicated moderators. Thank you for ignoring the part where that's completely irrelevant. There is no need for a chat moderator to have mainspace edits. Patrollers and rollbacks needs that. Chat moderators are as distanced from articles as you can get. There is no need for it. Think of it this way: I just join the wiki and do nothing but chat for two months, then request Chat Moderator rights. I meet the requirements so I get the rights. I did literally nothing to achieve the rights, and now that I have them I can do whatever the heck I want with them.

Now look at it this way: I join the wiki, and prove myself a dedicated and valued community member by making 100 edits (50 of which mainspace) over a two month period. I had to work for the rights, therefore there is a higher level of dedication. The 50 mainspace edits are there to ensure that I am making quality edits, rather than spamming on walls, forums, etc. to get 100 edits. Are you aware of what the Request For Rights system is? You are not instantly granted the rights upon requesting them. There is a vote. People support and oppose. If you are not fit for the rights, votes will reflect that. People would not support a user who did nothing for two months, and even if there were supporters, they would certainly not be a 75% majority. ''My previous post was assuming they did get a 75% support majority... ''

If we get rid of the edit req, then you could still get CM without doing anything. It isn't impossible or unlikely. The only requirement is having to be on the wiki for 2 months. Nothing more. Opposing for "not doing anything in those two months besides chatting" is ridiculous, as there is no longer a requirement stating that you must be doing something besides being on the wiki for two months. I can only come to the conclusion that you have no understanding of the way RFRs and policy work. Not meeting a requirement is not a valid reason for an oppose, it's a valid reason for taking down the RFR itself. You can easily oppose or at the very least neutral because they haven't done anything. People oppose because they don't think the person knows the community well enough, has good enough people skills, etc etc. There is absolutely no reason that "you've literally done nothing for the last two months and only barely meet the requirements" is not a valid oppose. "people oppose because they don't think the person knows the community well enough, has good enough people skills, etc etc"

And wouldn't an edit req help with that?

Also, I have a perfectly fine understand of the workings of the RfR system.