27,249pages on
this wiki

# This Forum has been archived

 Forums: Index → → User rights request requirements
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep requirements

Before I get slapped on the wrist, I have no intention of becoming a bureaucrat, administrator, rollbacker, or patroller. I'm merely criticizing the system of requirements necessary to get to these positions.

At any rate, have a look at this (from Brickipedia:User rights/Requests):

 User Group Edits Required for Nomination Time on Brickipedia Required for Nomination Bureaucrat - 2 months as administrator Administrator 1,000 30 Days Rollback 250 10 Days Patroller 250 10 Days

My God. Two hundred fifty edits and a week and a half just to get a tool that helps you undo three or four edits at a time. (Believe me, rollback really isn't much.) First of all, why are these requirements needed? According to the Requests page, "to prevent excessive nominations." So what? Sure, the administrators have to do a little more work, but you shouldn't be an admin if you don't want to do those kinds of dirty jobs; heh heh.

My humble request is to simply chuck all these silly requirements, and reduce them to a user account and a basic level of trust among the community. This not only bridges the gap between "special" and "normal" users by making "special" seem less special, but it also makes the whole system more reliant on the community's common sense than a mathematical formula. Plus, these rules have loopholes (what about userpagers?) and these holes can only be patched by...guess what...more rules.

Please consider this sloppily written request carefully, and, if you decide to vote, please provide a reason for your vote. FB100Ztalkcontribs 06:07, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

### Support

• Support per above, being the requester. FB100Ztalkcontribs 06:09, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Per nominator. Ajraddatz 23:35, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

### Neutral

• Though I don't see a point of the time on Brickipedia required for nomination. The Legend of Swipe Talk - Down with vandalism 19:20, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

### Oppose

• Strong oppose, reasons per Glad. And why would users deserve rights if they haven't even made 250 edits? 250 really isn't much. NightblazeSaber 07:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 08:38, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per NHL & Glad ---Keep Calm and Carry On--- Kingcjc 10:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per Cjc. Tatooine 19:15, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 01:46, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
• BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 18:59, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Jag 22:45, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

• I think they're fine the way they are. Tatooine 06:16, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Obvious as to what these rules are designed for, not so obvious is what Brickipedia gains from removing them Gladiatoring 06:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ on your first statement. The rules are designed to reduce the amount of work the admins have to do, but they place a barrier between the more privileged users and the less privileged ones by making "special" seem a more difficult position to achieve. I jokingly call this the "administration gap." FB100Ztalkcontribs 06:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
The rules are designed to have reputable and experienced users, in those said positions. They are not designed to reduce the amount of work the admins have to do what so ever. Secondly the barrier as you call it is the intended outcome, so inexperienced or undesirable users do not have these tools. Lastly there is no such thing as "special" or "more privileged users", there are just more known and trusted users who have these tools if they wish once the requirements are met. Gladiatoring 07:21, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there is a misunderstanding here, and I apologize for not being entirely clear. My point is to remove these requirements and let the community what "reputable and experienced" or "inexperienced or undesirable" exactly means. In other words, common sense should take precedence over $189 < 250$.
The "barrier" which I mention above is a social barrier. That should speak for itself.
I agree with you in that "special" users do not exist, although some are more privileged (having more "power," for lack of a better word, is a privilege, as it can be removed easily -- almost too easily ;) To make sure we're on the same page here, I'll call them "trusted users" as you do. FB100Ztalkcontribs 19:06, February 24, 2011 (UTC)