Forum:Policy Vote Rights Request Requirement Changes

After 5 weeks of discussion we've come to a solid set of new requirements for right requests proposals. I don't really have much of an introductory statement to this proposal, you've all heard my thoughts on everything and I think we've arrived at a fair set of new requirements for special rights users from the bottom up. This forum will propose those changes as official policy. Thank you to everyone who provided input, this is our first step towards a more unified community. The previous discussions can be found here and here.

I believe that some of these proposed requirement changes will make some of the current staff fall below the requisite requirements. As a result, I will add a final proposal which will stipulate that persons who are or were staff on or before the end date of this proposal vote will not have their rights removed if they do not meet the new requirements.---bleep196- (talk) 18:20, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Edit: At the request of Leon, I have placed a temporary lock on the vote in order to incoporate policies related to the New User Network. When the page is unlocked, the poll timer will be reset.

Edit Edit: The page has been unlocked for voting once more.

Proposed Requirement Changes
The "minimum" requirements for becoming a patroller are:
 * You've made at least 750 edits in the article, category, module, 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.
 * You have displayed a thorough understanding of and mastery of the basic editing tools.
 * This includes the ability to help other users who may have questions in regards to editing.

Yes

 * 1) Yes |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:03, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes Beside the literal impossibility of a user becoming truly acquainted with the style guidelines on a wiki of this magnitude with only 250 edits (one can easily make that many in a day doing routine maintenance), I think some people here are missing the broader point of extending the prerequisites for patroller. Indeed, the position is not in and of itself something which is particularly subject to abuse. It is, however, a stepping stone to other editorial positions, like content moderator, and is fundamentally still a staff position—like it or not, patrollers represent the staff. If you can't even bother to get 750 edits before applying for this position (once again, an incredibly small number for a wiki this big), do we really want you to be a staff member? It's not an excessive amount and shows dedication to the wiki, rather than a desire to have a shiny badge. TESWiki has a 2500 edit requirement for patrollers. In part because of this requirement (and others), we do not have behavior problems among staff; the only people insane enough to go for that genuinely care about the site. I really do not understand the conflicting goals here: "we want to improve the quality of the staff" goes hand-in-hand with "making it harder for unqualified users to become staff." —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes Bovinejeff (talk)
 * 4) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No 250 edits is plenty for a patroller. See also the comments the last time this was proposed and rejected. Aya42 (talk) 18:52, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No Patroller only gives minimalistic rights, and I feel that there are better ways to award the rights to aspiring editors.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No I agree with most things on the list, however 750 is a bit much. Perhaps 500 would be better? User:Fallout Engineer
 * 4) No As per Leon and aya. Jgrsoto Coat_of_arms_of_Puerto_Rico.png 18:50, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) No I agree with the other votes, I even think 500 would be too much. 750 edits may be nothing to some, but to others that make larger edits that can take rather long. Users have different ways of editing, and because this position is unique since it is decided by a bureaucrat, a lower edit count will leave more room for the bureaucrat to decide case-by-case. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:23, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) No AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) No I'm okay with the 1st and 2nd parts (considering that I had done way more than those requirements when AgentC offered me the position), but not the 4th and 5th. You don't need to be a Chat Moderator and know the ins and outs of that to be an editor. I'm also not comfortable with the needing to be a master of all the tools of editing. Most editing done on a regular basis is rather basic (not requiring video uploadings or a picture slideshow), so "mastery" might not be a requirement of being a Patroller, but rather just a "familiarity" of most of the controls. That's my two bottlecaps.Leea (talk) 19:45, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) No 250 mainspace edits minimum should be enough. -- Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  As I said in the forum 2.0, I do have some new concerns with patroller that I would at least like to see discussed further. Beyond that, I have no comment on the stats needed, and I defer judgement to those more familiar and likely to be affected on this front. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:04, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I do not think that the 750 edit requirement will change much since there's barely ever editors who qualify for patroller rights before hitting 750 edits anyway. - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't like raising the minimum reqs, but they are closer to reality and may therefore disappoint less users when they don't get patroller (yet) - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 17:11, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Upon reflection (since that first vote on options long ago), I guess bureaucrat discretion renders edit counts a bit meaningless in this case. I have no visibility on how many people apply for patroller rights (I myself did not, instead the 'crat approached me) so I'm not sure how much the edit count incentivises or disincentivises someone from becoming one. Willing to be guided by others with more experience on this. L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 09:29, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Honestly wasn't sure about this one from the start given I've always trusted the BCs to determine when someone is ready for patroller rights. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:06, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * The phrase "continuously active" is used for many of these role requirements but is never clearly defined. I think this should be clarified as to whether this intends to correspond to the badge "contribute to the wiki every day for XXX days" or not. -- Bovinejeff (talk) 23:19, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard to quantify each person's activity, but I would say it means, at minimum, you're present on the wiki weather through editing, /d posts, or discord posts in some way or form on a week to week, and possibly even every other day basis. Its unreasonable to expect someone to be editing or conducting actions every single day of the week, people have lives, jobs, friends, and family and at the end of the day this is a hobby we indulge ourselves in. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:00, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine if that's understood, but I'm suggesting that maybe it should be clarified with more specific wording than simply "continuously active" to avoid confusion or later arguments. -- Bovinejeff (talk) 16:55, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm open to suggestions on that front. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:17, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Requirement Changes
The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:
 * You must understand the basics of editing, and be able to teach others how to accomplish basic edits.
 * You must be able to instruct and direct discord users on how to vote and comment on forum posts as necessary.
 * You've created 5000 posts within any of the channels within the discord.
 * You've displayed mastery of discord's interface and tools through interactions with others.
 * You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (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.

Yes

 * 1) Yes I agree that a understanding of discord is needed for a chat moderator. This shows they are in touch with the community. User:Fallout Engineer
 * 2) Yes The Discord specific changes are all welcome. Asking users to have a basic understanding of the wiki, combined with extra ordinarily relaxed edit requirements, makes sense and should not be a significant burden The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:16, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:04, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes 250 edits may sound like a lot to someone with 0 edits, but because of the variety of namespaces permitted here, it is unfathomably easy to reach that number in a fairly short amount of time. Blog and forum comments are not in any way difficult to obtain. The same logic that I mentioned with the patroller vote applies here; as staff, you are sometimes going to have to do things you don't like to do, and if you can't even bother to get that number of edits, I really think you should not be a staff member. The other requirements are also appropriate. You want better staff, weed out the people who can't handle doing even the most simple tasks. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk) 16:43, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 20:51, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:15, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 05:41, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes - FDekker talk 18:37, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes I believe its time we shape up our requirements for Chat moderators. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:07, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No Chat Moderators do not need to understand other aspects of the wiki outside of their comfort zone, as their position is a rather specific one. In the case of users under their medium seeking help outside of the chat, Chat Moderators should already be well aware of the Administration tab on the wiki, and who to point them towards.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No For the same reasons as Leon. The actual wiki, discussions and chat are three distinct entities with different purposes. If a user wishes to use all of them, that's their choice, but we should not be alienating users who only wish to use one or two of these systems. Aya42 (talk) 20:50, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No I like the first requirement more than the 50 edits, but it can't be measured in my opinion. - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 17:13, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) NoFudgenuts (talk) 02:54, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) No AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  I don't take any part in chat or discussions at all, so whatever decided here is fine.Leea (talk) 19:54, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with this but I also agree with the no voters, can't decide properly so err neutral for now. --  Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Excluded

 * 1) No I agree with the message requirement, but the edit requirement is too high. Sure, it is in any namespace, but I think this would lead to scenarios where users simply spam 250 user page edits to qualify. With hundred, a good portion of the edits will come naturally. Ideally we'd drop the edit count and instead simply have candidates prove they are able to leave talk page messages, which is all they need to be able to do in that position. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:04, May 20, 2019 (UTC) - Vote changed.

Proposal
Remove the role in its entirety, and allow "moderators" to request content moderator rights.

Yes

 * 1) Yes Aya42 (talk) 18:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes User:Fallout Engineer
 * 4) Yes The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes it’s about time  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 22:56, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes
 * 7) Yes A confusing role to begin with. No use for it here. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes It's been confusing for way too long. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:06, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 05:39, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes Better to be a Chat Moderator or Content Moderator than the ambiguous "Moderator". Leea (talk) 20:01, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes This should have been done back when discussions was originally made. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:07, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 17:15, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) ChatMod+Patroller=Moderator So what am I missing? --  Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Requirement Changes
The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:
 * You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
 * You display a thorough mastery of basic and advanced editing tools, as well as substantial experience utilizing templates.
 * You must be able and/or willing to answer editing questions if brought forward.
 * You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
 * You have not made a failed Content Moderator 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/moderator (Either removed or renamed), for a minimum of two months.
 * You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
 * You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.
 * Individuals holding discussions moderator rights that are seeking content moderator rights should apply for administrator given the overlap between the rights groups permissions.

Yes

 * 1) Yes User:Fallout Engineer
 * 2) Yes Looking at the stats requirements, I defer once again. However, consider my vote a yes for some of the added stipulations such as a understanding that the position is one that may require offering guidance to less confident or confused editors. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:05, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes Even more than patroller, content moderators need to understand pretty much every editorial aspect of the site so that they can guide new editors and answer questions that come their way. A prerequisite of 2000 edits is a perfectly reasonable number on a wiki of this size to accommodate that necessity. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes Bovinejeff (talk)
 * 6) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 05:40, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes Sounds good. Leea (talk) 20:05, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes Being an administrator without the bans and cross platform interest, I think shaping Content mods up to be expert editors is a necessary measure. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:08, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No 1000 edits is plenty. Aya42 (talk) 18:57, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No My thoughts are entirely identical on this front to my Patroller point.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No Asper Leon and Aya. Jgrsoto Coat_of_arms_of_Puerto_Rico.png 18:54, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) No 1000 minimum is good enough. -- Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Both seem fine to me. 1000 or 2000 is pretty good. Acj1225 (User talk:Acj1225)
 * 2)  - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 18:08, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Requirement Changes
To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.
 * You must have made 2500 discussions posts.
 * You must display complete mastery of all discussions functions.
 * You must understand the basics of editing, and be able to teach others how to accomplish basic edits.
 * You must be able to instruct /d users on how to vote and comment on forum posts as necessary.
 * Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
 * Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
 * Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
 * If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
 * You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".
 * Due to permissions held by content moderator, discussions moderator meeting the prerequisites for the former are encouraged to apply for administrator rights.

Yes

 * 1) Yes User:Fallout Engineer
 * 2) Yes Same as with chat mod, the edit requirements are significantly relaxed. Given the complete lack of an Editorial Bullpen equivalent on /d, it may be even more valuable. At the very least we should be able to answer basic questions a confused user might have. I too would have liked to see more /d user feed back, but the forums were open for nearly a month and half with links provided to the community. We cannot force anyone to participate in conversations directly affecting them, unfortunately. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:32, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes with my suggestion to just teach new d mods now being used, i vote yes.  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 00:05, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes Since the edit requirement is replaced with only requiring basic editing knowledge (which isn’t too difficult to obtain) I’ll just give my vote the ol’ switcheroo Laat the Survivor  RangerSequoia.png (talk) 00:25, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:06, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes Saxhleel12 (talk)
 * 7) Yes I would have liked to see an actual edit requirement, as with the other positions, but adding more of an editorial focus is still better than nothing. Discussions is a fun platform for a lot of users, but it also has the capacity to draw in a ton of editors to the wiki; promoting moderators who actually understand editing processes is a step in the right direction. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes Because voting requires user to edit, discussions mods being able to instruct how to do this would be very helpful. Also, they should be able to write talk page messages, sometimes warnings should be given this way, as well as ban notices. Except for those things, discussions mods should not be expected to know anything else about editing. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:09, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes I like the new changes. Acj1225 (talk)
 * 12) Yes AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes ---bleep196- (talk) 15:28, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No My point is entirely identical to the one I used for the Chat Moderator proposal.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No Same as what Leon said. Aya42 (talk) 20:51, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  As with Chat Moderator, what happens to Discussions Moderator requirements doesn't really matter to me. Leea (talk) 20:12, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm with Leeo except I care about chatmod. --  Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Excluded Votes

 * 1) No i think that’s too many edits for discussions moderator. i do agree a d mod should be capable of answering editorial questions, but i’m not sure this edit count is the way. That’s a lot for just someone who will be moderating discussions, and i think a better alternative would be give new d mods a “crash course” on basic editing questions they may he asked. i’d 100% volunteer to train a new d mod on basic editing questions they’d be asked.  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 22:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC) Vote changed.
 * 2) No I feel that the edit count is still too steep and it worries me that there was a lack of input from /d members in the discussion process, and those are who this affects the most -- Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk) 18:28, May 17, 2019 (UTC) Vote Changed

Proposed Requirement Changes
The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:
 * You have made at least 5000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
 * OR if community focused, You have made at least 5000 discussion posts OR at least 10,000 discord posts.
 * Most Administrators are expected to display complete mastery of all facets of editing, and at least minimal understanding of backed functions.
 * You have made at least 1000 discussion posts or You have made at least 2000 discord posts.
 * OR if community focused you have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) and display thorough understanding and mastery of basic and advanced editing.
 * You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one year.
 * 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.
 * Administrator candidates who are specialized in technical roles or purely editing (I.E. Handle CSS/Javascript, Work extensively with templates; especially more complex ones like infoboxes and navboxes, employ a bot for large scale editing, or perform critical backend and frontend maintenance edits without which the wiki could not continue to function) may circumvent the community specific requirements by making 500 edits in the user talkpage, article talk page, forum, and blog namespaces. Through this they are expected to demonstrate the same leadership/community interaction skills as candidates that are not purely editing focused.

Yes

 * 1) Yes We need admins that are familiar with all aspects of the wiki. That includes chat and discussions, both of which are generally neglected -- Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk) 20:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes I agree with Laat. Acj1225 (talk)
 * 3) Yes The admin position includes rights which dictate both the editorial and social aspects of the wiki, and yet community engagement from a significant portion of the admin team is virtually non-existent. Without changing this the divide between the various avenues of the wiki will never close. I especially support the multiple ways a potential candidate could qualify, with users having the option of specializing but without being able to ignore virtually everything else. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:41, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes sysop is a leadership position on the wiki, and as such, they’re given access to chat and discussions tools. If they’re not familiar with these platforms on the wiki at least, then content moderator would be more suitable. You wouldn’t want a sysop who doesn’t know anything about discussions and/or chat, because then why would they want power over those, Content moderator gives almost all sysop editing powers without the need to be familiarized with the social aspects of the wiki.   President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 23:02, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes Saxhleel12 (talk)
 * 6) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:07, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes The higher editing requirement is appropriate. Additionally, I would like to say that the idea that administrators should just hide in their holes all day and never interact with the community is baffling to me. Admins/bureaucrats are the first people that Wikia Staff contact if they need to reach out to a wiki; the expectation is that those people are involved enough with their own community that they can always be trusted to coordinate community projects and events as needed. On TES, we had a very, very nasty bit of drama in 2014 and 2015 stemming in large part from admins intentionally ignoring the social aspects of the site, despite fundamentally being community leaders. Upping community engagement solved that. The requirements proposed here are worded in such a way that you do not need to be a social butterfly to be an admin, if you have strong technical skills, but you still need to be able to interact with the other people on the wiki effectively, because you are, like it or not, the faces of the wiki. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes I like the technical clause. It's vague, but the cases it covers are vague to begin with. I am not entirely sure the 5k boundary is the right spot but it's not too far off. - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 05:45, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes There are a fair number of people who are starkly opposed to these measures. Its hard to say whether this is the best course of action for most people, and I won't lie, I understand the resistance to certain clauses. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:31, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No Wiki administrators should not be required to use discussions or chat. Why would you want to change the requirements such that solid wiki contributors like Jspoel would not qualify for this position? Aya42 (talk) 19:21, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No Once the Administrator and Bureaucrat roles are being sought, these sorts of prerequisites become more and more meaningless, as anyone can spam contributions without actually showing skill. I believe that there should be prerequisites, but they shouldn't be expounded upon by artificially raising the difficulty of gaining the rights, without necessarily focusing on the user's skill as a leader.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No I’m in agreement with Aya. Great Mara (talk) 22:41, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) NoAs per Aya. Jgrsoto Coat_of_arms_of_Puerto_Rico.png 18:55, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) No This is a very strong no, most of the clauses are really problematic in my opinion. - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 19:34, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) NoFudgenuts (talk) 02:59, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) No AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) No As per Aya, I don't like the mandatory discussions or chat qualifiers. Not everyone uses that part of the wiki. Hell, Discord isn't even a part of the wiki, but another website altogether. I know lots of users go there, but to force someone who could be a great contributor to the wiki go there and make so many contributions there seems highly unfair.Leea (talk) 20:23, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) No Pretty much said by everyone who voted no. -- Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:14, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) No --The Greatest Savior  (talk) 16:05, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  User:Fallout Engineer

Comments
I feel it important to note that users like Jspoel already qualify for the technically minded administrator clause due to their sheer knowledge and proficiency with the templates. ---bleep196- (talk) 19:45, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * "Particularly talented tech-minded individuals..." is too vague for a policy document. Criteria such as "must have 2000 edits" are black and white, you either have them or not, but who's to decide who's "particularly talented" or not? Aya42 (talk) 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * That's what a community vote is for. These things are inherently subjective. Including a statement like that anyway focuses the things that community members consider when casting their votes, so that these subjective considerations are not overshadowed by other matters. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

In reference to votes saying otherwise, I most definitely think that administrators should be forced to at least be familiar with /d and chat, especially if they’re going to have moderation power over the two platforms. It’s frankly ridiculous that this hasn’t been a requirement in the past. A leader should be familiar with all aspects of what they are entrusted to lead, and like it or not discussions and chat are part of the wiki. You wouldn’t want a content moderator who can’t edit, a chat mod who doesn’t chat, or a discussions moderator with no discussions posts. So why do we want admins that will more often than not fit into at least one of those descriptions without these requirements? Laat the Survivor  (talk) 23:09, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * Problem is, there currently doesn't exist a position which is the wiki-equivalent of a chatmod or dmod. Chatmods can ban users from chat, and dmods can block users from /d, but content mods can't block users from the wiki - only an admin can do that. So for a user who is only interested in the wiki, and wants to be able to block vandals, the administrator position is the lowest one which will allow them to do so.


 * If the content mods were allowed to block vandals, then I'd agree that the administrator position should be more akin to a composite of the requirements for chatmod, dmod and content mod. A user could opt to apply for one, two or all three of these positions, the latter effectively making them an administrator. However, that's not the way the wiki permissions are configured, and only Fandom can change that.


 * Furthermore, these edit/post requirements seem ridiculous. I mean, does one really have to have made thousands of edits/posts to have the common sense to delete/block a spammer advertising viagra or somesuch? Surely more moderators is better than fewer moderators. With more moderators, there's less work for each to do, and each can feel more comfortable taking a break for a while from what is ultimately an unpaid job. It logicially follows that lowering the required edit/post counts would lead to more applications than increasing them, so this change would ultimately seem detrimental to the wiki.


 * @bleep: Exactly what problem do you see currently with the wiki that this change would solve? Aya42 (talk) 14:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)


 * The edit requirement is less about deleting obvious spam (which anyone can do) and more about being able to reliably make decisions about edge cases. Administrators cannot defer to other people; they are the ones to whom everyone on the wiki defers. They therefore need to have enough experience with confusing or difficult editorial situations to determine an effective course of action. An edit requirement is a good way to standardize this at a base level, —Atvelonis (talk) 16:29, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * @aya i don’t think the fact that content moderators cannot block is justification for allowing someone to run for administrator and wield power over certain areas of the wiki that they have no interest in. A content moderator can request a block from an admin if it comes to that. Sure, it’d definitely be more convenient for content moderators to have the blocking ability, but just because that’s not one of their tools, doesn’t justify giving someone power over something they’re not familiar with in the slightest and/or don’t like. also, in response to your argument about what does a post requirement do, i could make the same argument about what does an editing count requirement do. the post count is mostly about being integrated with the community even a little, and knowing how things work there. it also shows how someone requesting rights for that part of the wiki actually cares. President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 20:57, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand most of the requirements. I'm pretty sure most admins that this wiki has had have become admin when they had less than 5000 edits in total, all pages combined. I usually think of the 4000 all kinds of edits with a notable bigger amount of them being either file or article. 5000 discussion posts or 10 000 discord posts as alternative is a joke (and an insult to editors, in my opinion), even besides the point that I thought that we already had different positions to focus more on the other sides like chat and discord. I don't understand the requirement at all for the need for discussions or discord posts for an admin. If an admin manages to win a vote while neglecting networking/campaigning on these platforms, then he must be a pretty damn good candidate from the editing point of view, which is supposed to be still the core of the wiki. The one year requirement is also nonsense in my opinion. If you're good and ready, then you're good and ready. Forcing good people to wait a year can really be lethal to the recruitment of good future admins. Especially in the light of population inflows at the release of new games. New user inflows largely follow the iintroduction of new games, with the amount of visits of this site going up to times 15 with the release of a new game. If we force everyone that flows in then to wait a year, while admins from before are naturally flowing off, a serious admin gap might happen, especially as game introductions not rarely make admins resign. I really really hope that this will be reconsidered and it worries me that right now the "yes" vote is leading. - Greets Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 19:42, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn’t admins, who have rights over both chat and discussions, not be active or familiar with those fronts? They are part of the wiki as well, and being an administrator is being in a leadership position. Leaders should at the very least recognize who and what they are leading. The fact that we have people opposing that is nonsense to me. Would we want discussions moderators who aren’t on discussions? Or chat mods who don’t participate in chat? Then why would we want someone with rights over both of those platforms who is absent from those platforms? Administrator is more than an editing toolset, it is also a discussions and chat toolset. Laat the Survivor  RangerSequoia.png (talk) 19:50, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the administrative roles for wiki vs chat/discussion/discord should not actually be combined and should instead be individually acquired through independent rank progressions? Although it's an admirable goal of encouraging people to be active on both mediums, this might not be the best way of achieving that goal. -- Bovinejeff (talk) 19:43, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

5000 discussion posts and 10000 discord messages a joke, what exactly is the punchline? Is it that this display is paired with a 2000 edit requirement, the current number of edits for which an admin must acquire? If 2000 edits seems like an insult, it is curious then that you believe raising the mandatory minimum number of edits to be the wrong move, Peace’n Hugs.

I am not tied down to the specifics of the stats behind the admin change if further discussion is allowed to take place, then let us discuss a more reasonable number; however, I feel the spirit of the vote is one which promotes a healthy wiki. Administrators, like it or not, are a leadership position within the wiki, and under the current system there is a complete lack of interest or representation within segments of the social sphere.

Currently, Richie is the only consistently active member of the staff at or above administrative level who regularly participates in /d. With staff resignations earlier in the year, currently Paladin the only remaining member of the entire admin level who could qualify for the position of /d mod based on post count, although the his last posts occurred in November of last year which falls well outside of being an active member. Looking at everyone else? None of the other admins have over 100 posts in the lifetime of the platform, two with 0 posts overall. Not including Paladin, the remaining ‘’seven’’ admins have only 168 posts between them. That means 8 or the 8 active admins have essentially nothing to do with the platform at the current time.

Chat/Discord fairs better with admins running the gambit from not having the platform at all to being some of the highest message count users. To this end, 2000 discord posts seems well within reach for those willing to participate, and considering discord houses the editorial bullpen, even the edit focused would have an outlet for “strictly business” communications. With the number of questions asked there, even by high count editors, I am certain that additional perspectives or points of guidance would be welcome.

To Leea’s point, the issue should not be that the proposal suggests administrators need to meet social requirements; the issue should be that administrators, who have authority within discussions and chat, should have to display some level interest in the areas they will be given rights to prior to their petition. Were edits the end all be all factor to determine whether a mod should be a noteworthy applicant, then why is that not reflected across the chat and /d mod requirements? Instead, the rights requirements for those positions focus on that user’s presence on the respective platforms. And viewing the social platforms as only means of campaigning is part of the problem. If the only experience the community has with a petitioner is through campaign messages, how does the community get to know who the user is or how they carry themselves in any sort of interactions? This is as much my fault as anyone’s but few and far between have been the petitions which were handled with any level of critique or scrutiny…that’s how we end up with things like community importance or connecting users being thrown around as lofty promises that go all but unfulfilled.

And although discord is another site, it houses the official Nukapedia chat. It is the domain for which we currently elect chat mods, and it is an extension of the site, even housing the staff communications channel. And as with /d, it is an area outside of editing for which admins have control, yet have no standards to meet. For reference Leea, 2000 discord posts is next to nothing. Aya has just shy of 30,000 posts as of right now.

I understand that not everyone wants to chat or visit /d, but when almost every other staff position clearly lays out the requirements for corresponding rights, why is it that using the social platforms is being hailed as another unspoken rules? Just below this discussion, we are codify the ‘crat position specifically to remove unspoken requirements in favor of a clear set of prerequisites. So long as the admin position has social authority, there should be an equivalent set of standards.

And it is not just a matter of community interaction or leadership. Right now, if Fandom came to any of these admins and asked how they felt about the performance of a platform like /d after the latest update, do you believe they would accurately be able to describe the positive and negative aspects of the changes? If Fandom came to them concerning conduct or any number of issues regarding the platform, do you think any sort of nuanced answer without having to defer to the /d mod team? I doubt it would be acceptable in the slightest if the entire administrative team had to defer to the content mods for every issue that arose with edits, and I see no difference here.

We should not be worried about users wanting to take the social platforms seriously, but we should be worried about continuing to promote the idea that administrators can ignore whole sections of the community, thus furthering the divide between the user base. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:09, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Current Standards
Unwritten, based on previous unspoken standards.

Proposed Requirement Changes
The minimum requirements for becoming an Bureaucrat are:
 * Having previously held the position of Administrator for no less than six months.
 * Having displayed an acute understanding of all facets of editing, all functions of the discussions board, and all aspects of the discord server and the community.
 * Having displayed exemplary leadership skills and astute understanding of their role as an administrator.
 * Possession of Administrator rights at time of application.
 * In the event that there are 1 (one) or less active Bureaucrats, the community or active staff may elevate one or more users they feel will successfully carry out the role of Bureaucrat, regardless of whether they currently meet the base requirements.

Yes

 * 1) Yes Aya42 (talk) 19:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes User:Fallout Engineer
 * 4) Yes Acj1225 (Acj1225)
 * 5) Yes The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:43, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes i vote yes with the hopes that the new admin prequesites go through, so that there can at least be sysops who care for discussions and chat.  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg,
 * 7) Yes Saxhleel12 (talk)
 * 8) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:08, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes No objections here. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:21, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes Bovinejeff (talk)
 * 11) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes - Greets  Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 17:09, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes You should at least know how to be an Administrator for an extended period of time before you can have the chance to be something even bigger. Leea (talk) 20:30, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Yes The fact that we went for 8 years after the split without codified requirements for the BC's is unbelievable. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:35, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes I don't like random strangers, abusing this application just because there is no requirements listed. Lets make this official to stop this silly annoying requests. -- Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Retroactive Clause
Should any of the above measures pass, staff members who do not meet the current minimal guidelines for their position will not be subjected to automatic rights removal.

Yes

 * 1) Yes The community already voted them in, so they have the right to stay regardless of policy changes. If the community feels as if an existing rights-holder should be held to a higher standard, then that is what reconfirmation requests are for.  寧靜 Fox.png 20:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes Like Aya, I think there could be more clarity on what represents sufficient time, see the effects of similarly vague clauses such as "with all deliberate speed" for instances on where that can go wrong. On the whole, however, I agree with Leon. Existing rights holders should not be at risk of losing positions earned under older requirements. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 22:48, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes per leon.  President Autumn  User image president autumn signature.jpeg 23:05, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes  |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:09, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes - FDekker talk 13:30, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk) 16:45, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes as per Leon - Greets Peace'n Hugs  (talk) (blog) 17:10, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:36, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes Aya42 (talk) 21:59, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes AllYourFavorites! (talk) 19:20, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes L84tea Tea kettle.png you like a cup of tea? 05:44, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes I've held the position of Patroller for years, and I'd rather not lose the tools I have been given by the previous bureaucrat AgentC just because I've never held the position of Chat Moderator. Leea (talk) 20:40, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes Nobody should lose their rights who has already been voted in by the community. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:37, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes What Blop Said. ^ -- Cassie The Rodio Girl    I see you.  . ✿ 16:11, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No Again, vague. And it may very well lead to boosting. Also see points above about admin requirements. Great Mara (talk) 22:44, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No if a yes vote in the yes section is a double positive, isn't a no vote in the no section a double negative? Whatever. My vote is no. Is that clear enough?Fudgenuts (talk) 21:40, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  User:Fallout Engineer

Excluded Votes

 * 1) Yes Fudgenuts (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2019 (UTC) Vote unclear, indicates yes but placed in no section.
 * 2) No I agree with the first part, but am unsure of the 'sufficient time' part. Users should never have their rights removed retroactively. The user was elected to the position, that position remains unchanged. I don't know what sufficient time means, but I don't think there should be any time limit whatsoever. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 11:20, May 20, 2019 (UTC) - Vote changed
 * 3) No This will just encourage spamming, and something as vague as "sufficient time as is reasonable" has no place in a policy document. Aya42 (talk) 20:03, May 17, 2019 (UTC) - Vote changed

Comments
It's unclear what this clause means. I assumed voting "yes" means that existing rights holders would have to do attempt to meet the new criteria, and "no" meant they didn't. Aya42 (talk) 20:14, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * It's essentially what Leon is saying. They've already been voted into the position by the community, and these changes aren't going to subject them to automatic removal (this is a retroactive clause to protect our current right holders from mob mass reconfirmation that might happen should they not satisfy the new requirements.)---bleep196- (talk) 20:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * So that implies that voting "no" means that users will be "subject to automatic removal of rights"? How do I vote for "existing rights holders have no obligation to meet new requirements"? Aya42 (talk) 20:36, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * Much like Aya has stated, I am abstaining from this portion of the vote until it is clear what exactly the options mean Laat the Survivor  RangerSequoia.png (talk) 23:11, May 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a fairly straightforward clause... If you have somehow been made "invalid" by any of these votes (i.e., having less edits/whatever than is now required for your rank), you won't be forced to lose your rank until you accumulate those edits/whatever. |\|  |\/| /\ |)  | Talk | Discord | NMC   01:10, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

General Comments
The general consensus I have gotten so far from the votes is fairly positive. A couple notes I want to make and potential changes to the policies. You can specifically ping me on discord with your thoughts, or leave a comment here in regards to what I'm about to say, so that I will know how it will effect the currently submitted votes.


 * There seems to be a split among the userbase towards whether or not Chat Moderators should be required to have a set number of minimal edits in their repertoire before running. Like the /d moderator before I submitted those changes, a number of users feel that training chat moderators in the basics of editing would be sufficient, and that a minimal editing requirements is unnecessary. I felt, when I introduced this forum, that Chat and /d moderators should have identical editing requirements. While historically we've had a minimal editing requirement, this was when the chat was directly attached to the wiki at the hip. This is no longer the case, and while I, frankly, would like to see better connection to the wiki from discord, forcing chat moderators to make edits seems counterproductive to the role. With the new numerical post requirements, I feel we substitute that hard set minimal requirement that editing used to provide. I feel like if we train our chat moderators, the majority of whom currently have a good handle of basic editing knowledge to begin with, we eliminate an arbitrary hard quantity requirement and introduce a qualitative requirement.


 * Aya has brought up a point in regards to the technical clause with regards to administrators. I've been thinking about it and I would like to reword it to be more clear, and give it an objective requirement which would substitute for the Community requirement. See bullet point below. I'm going to refer to this clause as the Jspoelestra clause.
 * Administrator candidates who are specialized in technical roles or purely editing (I.E. Handle CSS/Javascript, Work extensively with templates; epspecially more complex ones like infoboxes and navboxes, employ a bot for large scale editing, or perform critical backend and frontend maintenance edits without which the wiki could not continue to function) may circumvent the community specific requirements by making 500 edits in the user talkpage, article talk page, forum, and blog namespaces. Through this they are expected to demonstrate the same leadership/community interaction skills as candidates that are not purely editing focused.


 * I'd also like to reword the retroactive clause, as its poorly written. Its important to note that the vast majority of staff members that would be affected by these proposals meet or exceed the requirements currently proposed. If users prefer the edited technical clause, all current administrators will meet or exceed the requirements.
 * Should any of the above measures pass, staff members who do not meet the current minimal guidelines for their position **will not** be subjected to automatic rights removal.

Please leave your thoughts below this comment.---bleep196- (talk) 18:45, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * After some discussion with other users in discord, and the way the votes appear to be leaning on certain subjects, I've decided to implement the above changes as the final measures on the forum. I will be leaving talkpage messages for everyone who has voted so far. Rather than the 1000 talkpage, article talkpage, forum, and blog and blog post namespace edits, I have decided to reduce the requirement to 500. This is due primarily to the fact that the frequency of edits in those categories outside of participation in major projects, periods of high forum activity, and more frequent blog posts has become severely reduced in recent years due to the ease of communication provided by our adjacent community platform. This requirement may still be steep, but 1000 discussion posts is a fairly lofty bar as well. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:34, May 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of the vote on the proposed changes to the Administrator position, I will likely be proposing a contingency vote once the BC's have reached a decision to ensure that Content moderator and Administrator do not have the same base requisite requirements. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:27, May 28, 2019 (UTC)