<div class="quote"> <p>Bourgeoisie wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Bourgeoisie wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Benboy755 wrote: Same as patroller. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Madkatmaximus wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Bourgeoisie wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Bourgeoisie wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Benboy755 wrote: Same as patroller. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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... </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Bourgeoisie wrote: </p>

1. User has not been banned in the past month
2. User has at least 100 mainspace contributions (to show they actually do stuff on the wiki)
3. User has at least 100 contributions to forums
4. User is familiar with wiki policy and how to enforce it
5. User has not received any warnings in the past 1-3 months about spam or vandalism on the wiki or in forums (does this wiki give warnings on talk pages?)

<p>Those are just some basic ideas I have. </p> </div> <p>I agree with this. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Madkatmaximus wrote: No matter how good of an editor they were, I wouldn't want someone like that with patroller rights. </p> </div> <p>I would </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:
</p><p>I say we just bounce a few ideas around before actually having a vote. </p> </div> <p>So why not posting this in the Suggestions board? </p>

1. User has not been banned/blocked in the past 2 months
2. User has at least 50 mainspace contributions
3. User has at least 150 contributions to forums
4. User has not received any warnings in the past 3 months about spam or vandalism on the wiki or in forums

<p>Similar to Bourg's </p>

<p>I disagree with the whole 100-150 contributions to forums thing; forums aren't a very active part of this wiki, they're really only used for community votes such as this one. </p><p>Also don't have the same requirements as for patroller, this is much more of a social tool while that is an editing tool, it doesn't make sense to treat them the same way. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Loney 97 wrote: I disagree with the whole 100-150 contributions to forums thing; forums aren't a very active part of this wiki, they're really only used for community votes such as this one. </p><p>Also don't have the same requirements as for patroller, this is much more of a social tool while that is an editing tool, it doesn't make sense to treat them the same way. </p> </div> <p>Loney, if a user doesn't contribute to forums, then why would they be qualified to moderate them? </p><p>150 or so contributions to forums is actually pretty low, and not hard for someone who has been around a good amount of time. I have about 500 edits on board threads. </p>

<div class="quote">Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Loney 97 wrote: I disagree with the whole 100-150 contributions to forums thing; forums aren't a very active part of this wiki, they're really only used for community votes such as this one. </p><p>Also don't have the same requirements as for patroller, this is much more of a social tool while that is an editing tool, it doesn't make sense to treat them the same way. </p> </div>Loney, if a user doesn't contribute to forums, then why would they be qualified to moderate them? <p>150 or so contributions to forums is actually pretty low, and not hard for someone who has been around a good amount of time. I have about 500 edits on board threads. </p> </div> <p>Yeah, I agree, I have like 1,500 thread edits. :P
</p>

<p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>There's my thoughts. Someone remind me to vote if we change this from a discussion to a vote. </p><noscript></noscript>