UESPWiki talk:Autopatrolled Users/Archive 1

This is an archive of past UESPWiki talk:Autopatrolled Users discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

One More Issue...

I realize this should have been brought up during the related discussion on the AN, but I didn't notice it until now. In the Voting Guidelines section of the project page, it currently states that "The nominated user must remain in the voting stage for at least one week, unless an Administrator decides a speedy promotion is applicable." Personally, I don't believe speedy promotions should be allowed for this group, since three 'Oppose' votes will fail a nomination no matter how many support it. Given the 'at least two in Support' and 'no more than two Oppose' rule, I believe that all nominations should remain in the voting stage for one week, period. Am I being too picky on this, or does anyone else feel that speedy promotions shouldn't apply to this group? ABCface^◥ 06:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'd agree with that. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider that, but it does make sense. Yes, I agree with that. Velyanthe^{►Talk►Email} 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make the change. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And Another Thing

Do we want to archive nominations once they're done, or are we treating this more like the User Patrollers, where it's considered to be not notable enough to warrant archiving? Personally, I tend towards the latter, but I didn't want to simply remove Coronus' nomination (which he refused) without community input. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely neutral on this one. I really wouldn't care one way or the other. ABCface^◥ 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not archiving them, but I could honestly go either way. • JA^Talk 00:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes to archiving. It would keep a complete record of who's been nominated, why they were nominated, and why they were supported/opposed, in case they are nominated for autopatrollership or for removal from it in the future.

We might also want to ask individuals if they would like to be nominated for autopatrollership, to see if they're confident in their editing abilities, before making nominations in the future. I know they're not being given any extra responsibilities, but if they're not confident in making really good edits, it's probably best not to nominate them yet. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You've changed my mind, Vely. I still don't feel strongly about it, but I can see the benefit of archiving these. It's hard to see when we might actually need to have the information readily available, at this point, but it would be a good idea to keep it archived for future reference, just in case.

Also, I agree with your last suggestion as well. I don't know how we would formally do this, but letting users know they are being considered for the group before nominating them would be wise. That way, they can let us know if they would prefer their edits have the same oversight as most users before a nomination or any votes are made. ABCface^◥ 03:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can still go either way, but I agree that Velyanthe has a good point about why we should archive them. And I definitely agree (and have acted on) his last suggestion, and contacted Aliana, since I was the one who proposed her in the first place (even though Jak beat me to the actual nomination). – Robin Hood↝talk 03:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Velyanthe is at least half right: a vote that "fails", be it through opposition or the nominee declining/deferring, is definitely worth archiving for any number of reasons. Whether it's worth archiving a "passed" vote is much more debatable, since that by definition means it wasn't opposed or declined and thus has no real "content" to it, but there is one piece of information that would be preserved that way: the date of it. It obviously wouldn't be relevant to any other process right now since this is a new idea, but I could imagine it becoming a criteria for Patroller or whatever ("x weeks/months as an Autopatrolled User") somewhere down the line: lack of attention to detail in one's own edits is a major stumbling block on many of the nominations I've seen for that role. I'd lean towards archiving them, unless it's a major pain to do so. Aliana 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) It definitely wouldn't be difficult to do at all (especially for Patrollers and Administrators who are most likely to monitor this page). And I'm convinced now that keeping the archives would be better in the long run, just in case something does come up later on, as Aliana mentioned. I don't see any point of archiving some nominations but not others, however. If we archive any, I think we should archive them all. ABCface^◥ 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're mostly leaning in the direction of archiving, and it certainly doesn't hurt anything to do so, so I've gone ahead and done it. I've used a simpler version of the Patrollers/Nominated/Complete setup, since I don't think we'll ever need a separate page for nominations—I don't expect we'll have all that many nominees, and by virtue of being limited to votes by Patrollers, I expect the page will be shorter in any event. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not a bad idea to let people know they're being nominated for this group, but I don't necessarily think they should always have a choice in the matter. As an example, we've begged PLRDLF to run for Patroller before just to get his edits autopatrolled, and he's always declined. If he were to express disinterest in being in the autopatrolled group, I might suggest he ought to be dragged in kicking and screaming regardless ;). eshe^talk 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, cuz I was thinking if we asked him, he might turn it down again. In truth, he's right that some of his English isn't perfect, but it's all easily comprehensible, and the few times I've been able to verify information he's posted, it's never been wrong. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to side with Eshe. What's the point of asking a user? Unlike with a Patroller nomination, which carries extra rights and responsibilities, all this group does is remove the red exclamation from the user's edits. If fact, unless they randomly looked up what their rights were, they wouldn't even know they were autopatrolled. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to respond to the last few posts here. PLRDLF rejected two patroller nominations because he WANTS another editor to proof read his edits – I see this as an absolutely rational decision and I agree with him 100%. PLRDLF often creates huge articles and he just wants to make sure his edits are up to standard. As an administrator, I have to embarrass myself each and every time I launch a huge article, asking someone to proof read for me and so on. Let’s not force him into something he is not comfortable with – we’ll just end up with another great editor gone for good. --Krusty 21:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I know at least two of those comments are tongue-in-cheek, but conceptually I absolutely agree with Krusty on this: doing something, even a "good" something, to an editor in violation of their explicit and expressed wish, is simply unacceptable. Period. However, in practical terms the issue is merely one of (mis)perception, and if PLRDLF could be made to understand that, everybody wins. The "argument" is, amusingly, Krusty himself: his edits aren't patrolled, regardless of their size, but if he mangles a construct or two it gets fixed by ... editors who read the article and improve it, which I thought was pretty much the whole point of the wiki concept, no? If PLRDLF is "unusually concerned" about an article, asking someone to proof-read it while it's still in a sandbox is always an option, but it's one that will only be required at his discretion. Aliana 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Yes, I was being silly about my comments because honestly I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a case either way. I just wanted to make the point that the group is really about what's convenient for people who do the patrolling, and that isn't necessarily dependent on a person accepting a nomination (as we do with Patrollers). Krusty brings up a good point about wanting people to look at your work on account of the English is a Silly Language thing, and I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, though, I don't really think PLRDLF's edits go unpatrolled because of writing issues--I think it's nearly always because almost nobody knows anything about Daggerfall. Of course, Aliana also makes an excellent point that he could always ask for proofreading if there's something he's not sure about. I'm just not sure rare cases of proofreading requests should necessarily disqualify him (or anyone) from this group. eshe^talk 02:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an idea to post on a user's page that they are being nominated and see whether they are in favor of or against being nominated. Gives them a chance to voice their opinions (like the way non-voting users can comment on these nominations), and patrollers and admins can choose whether or not to take them into account. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, their opinion doesn't matter. Being "autopatrolled" has no bearing on what they do on the wiki, so asking them seems to be just a waste of time. elliot (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the General Concept

I think it's probably worth taking a step back and looking at this in the abstract: specifically what are the Patrollers trying to achieve, what are they trying to avoid, and what's the relationship between those goals and the concerns that Krusty has. The first two are simple enough and clearly understood: it's the third one that's the stumbling block. The concerns seem to be:

1. "Autopatrolled Users will become sloppy if they know they're not being watched". I think this is unlikely, but aren't the recourses pretty obvious?
   1. Make it clear that being Autopatrolled is "at will" and can be revoked at any time given cause and consensus, just like membership in any other "special" group.
   2. Nothing is stopping anyone from choosing to patrol those edits if they're worried that quality is going down.
   3. Even without oversight, surely activity by editors in general in response to Autopatrolled edits will be a clear signal that there might be a problem developing.
2. "SR doesn't yet have the well-defined rules of the older namespaces, so everything needs checking regardless". This is a bigger issue by a long way, with multiple "areas" to worry about.
   1. An editor who habitually makes <Mistake X> generally shouldn't have passed the nomination process in the first place. An editor who develops a habit of making <Mistake X> after approval is covered in Section 1.3.
   2. Factual errors in content. A "consensus" of one editor and one Patroller will (hopefully) still be trumped by the consensus of dozens of Interested editors. Having that initial consensus consist of one "Privileged editor" doesn't change that any more than it does if you replace "Privileged editor" with "Patroller". See 2.1.
   3. Style guide violations. See 2.1. An editor who for whatever reason was approved despite that (say, a non-native speaker) can either ask for help when they feel they need it, or have faith that Interested editors will handle things like typos and twisted grammar.
   4. "Misplaced" edits. See 2.1. Once the rules for SR actually exist, a huge amount of content will need to be moved, linked, reformatted, and so on. In the meantime, it's still better to have it in the wiki somewhere than not, regardless of whether the editor who added it is "Privileged" or not.

I'm sure there are more, but I can't imagine anything where even the worst-case scenario would incur a larger "Patroller Time Cost" than the current system. As far as "overall quality" goes, there are two points worth raising: I think you have to have at least some faith in the site's editors in general, because that's the whole point of a wiki; but also, after the last 5 months essentially being a free-for-all, the delta rate impact of a handful of editors making Unpatrolled edits is at worst just going to be a drop in the ocean, surely?

As a parting thought, Option B:
Smack Elliot upside the head until he agrees to RfP again. That solves the "problem" of his edit count and gets another Patroller into the bargain. Isn't he already in a group of one for various other reasons that basically amount to "nearly all of the Patroller rights but without the title"? PLRDLF and I will remove ourselves from consideration, thus removing all the concerns about or contention over a new group, because there won't be one; and by the time the next "candidate" has the edit count and track record needed they'll be at (or at least close to) consideration for Patroller anyway, and it can be Business As Usual again. Aliana 12:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was for the Talk page: I had an EC, too many tabs open, and should be in bed. Aliana 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Aliana, this should have been brought up when the concept was in its infancy on the Administrator Noticeboard. Your opposition to this group, which has already been created, comes at a time when it is too late to do anything. Elliot has repeatedly stated that he DOES NOT WANT TO BE A PATROLLER, which, quite frankly, is entirely fair. No one should take on responsibility that they don't want. And, as a parting thought, considering the group was voted on and has been created and is actually going to create less work for the patrollers (as previously discussed), I would say that this is business as usual. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Aliana: Due to a (relatively) recent block, Elliot isn't eligible to run for Patroller until May 27.

Skooma: I think you've misunderstood. Aliana is trying to address the opposition to the group and/or specific users, not state that she has some. (PS, I'm assuming you're a "she", Aliana...please let me know if I'm wrong!)

All: At this point, the workload on Patrollers is under control. It's certainly nice to have users who are autopatrolled, but it's no longer critical. As much as I dislike the idea of having a group with only a single user in it, it looks like that's where we're headed. If I'd known that in advance, I would've said let's not bother with it, but of course, we needed the rules to be in place before we could figure out that most of the people we were proposing were opposed by enough other people to make it a moot point. The benefits of hindsight. ;) At least we'll have it for when other users are eligible in the future.

I'd also like to address the idea that sporadic editing should disqualify someone from membership in this group. I'm not a big fan of that idea for one simple reason: no matter when or how much a user edits, if we don't have to patrol their edits, it's that much more time we have to spend on things like adding content to pages, fixing errors, investigating bugs, etc. If Aliana does 100 edits this week and then doesn't return for a month (as is somewhat customary for her <g>), that's still 100 less edits we've had to patrol this week! – Robin Hood↝talk 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Skooma: As RH says, you've completely misread the intent: it explicitly states that it's giving consideration to Krusty's opposition to the group, which he reiterated yesterday, and suggesting a process / rules that might ease those concerns. Aliana 21:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Aliana: You're completely right, and I apologize. How embarrassing. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to mention that the block was appealed, but that goes without saying. elliot (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To Krusty and Elliot

Any objections to this group are now invalid. It was discussed and a consensus approved of the creation. If you couldn't be bothered to argue effectively against the the group in its conception, then don't bother now. Any objections to someone being put in the group should be based on their contributions and not an objection to the group. The Silencer has spoken 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at any time the Administrators/Bureaucrats have the right to remove any user group they think is causing problems. --kiz ^talk_email 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing, not even late timing, makes anybody's objections to something like this invalid. Yes, the discussion leading to the creation of this group has already concluded, but that does not mean it can't be discussed again. I haven't seen anyone cast a vote purely based on an objection to the existence of this group. All I see is disagreement over who should or shouldn't be in it, which is exactly why we have a voting process to begin with. eshe^talk 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Silencer, it appears that Krusty disagrees with the group, but he is participating in the voting. Elliot didn't say he doesn't agree with the group, he disagreed with your statement that "The group is about users who do not make mistakes, not for simply reducing the total amount of patrolling needed."

If there's any major opposition, we'll see it on the Admin Noticeboard soon enough. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

have at least one month of near-daily activity before being nominated, or at least three months or more of at least weekly activity.

Two of Krusty's Oppositions are based purely on lack of quantity. They have missed a few weeks recently, but they have contributed for long periods before that. He also supports elliot who had a low amount of contributions in the middle of march. There is no point having a group that no-one is allowed to join. The Silencer has spoken 18:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly your point is, other than to argue for the sake of arguing. • JA^Talk 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) The suggested qualifications are just that--suggestions. There should be no issue with opposing someone based on personal higher expectations, especially since this will vary on a case-by-case basis.

We're trying to keep this group very small. If someone doesn't make a lot of edits and/or they edit infrequently, there's not a huge need to autopatrol them. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Silencer, I suggest you read the original conversation on the Administrator Noticeboard. It has nothing to do with Elliot and Krusty "not supporting the group", nor is this conversation in any way relevant to the voting process. Patrollers and Administrators have voting rights. You are neither. You are welcome to comment, but make sure they are relevant comments. Above all, please consider whether the drama is beneficial to the site before making comments like this. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please dont tell me to read a discussion I took part in. And for proper credit you created the page, but I made the original content, most of which is still there with a few tweaks. I do not think Krusty is taking this group seriously, that is my concern. The Silencer has spoken 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright then--why don't we give Krusty a chance to chime in, if he wants, before we go on? eshe^talk 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me. You made it, but barely, and it's a very heavily modified version of what you put down. Which is entirely not the point, actually. I'm not in this discussion because I made the page. Also, he doesn't need to take it seriously. His vote carries as much weight as anyone else with a vote (perhaps more, being an admin). Don't direct poison at people unnecessarily is MY point. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you were saying in the first post, Silencer. You were trying to prevent people from voicing objections to something that is already established because you thought there was no point in doing so. I don't fault you for this, and I agree that at this point there's not a high probability of it being removed any time soon. I also understand how it can be rather humiliating to be told you're wrong by people who you were sure would agree with you - I've experienced that a few times myself, so I know that the first inclination is to defend one's actions to preserve one's own ego. Again, I don't blame you. But please consider, the more controversy that arises on this topic, whatever the source, the greater the chance that it actually WILL be removed. As several site regulars can attest, my posts on this site used to be a bit more aggressive than necessary, and I didn't make an effort to improve until I was told this. The point I'm trying to make here is that even though it's natural, if not the default response, to be a bit aggressive in heated debates, learning to moderate one's tone leads to better relations between editors and more efficient decision-making. ThuumofReason 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I feel obligated to remind users here of our etiquette guidelines. Particularly, I feel the need to remind everyone to Assume Good Faith. To avoid singling anyone out, I would ask everyone to read our article on good faith and then your comment once more. It should be quite clear if your comment was appropriate or not, then. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Silencer, I am compelled to note the fact that your comments here have been completely out of line. Saying our opinions are invalid is not only disrespectful to both myself and Krusty, but disrespectful to the community and consensus itself. It's worth noting that consensus can change, though. Now, my original opposition to the group was based in the fact that I thought the community would treat the group like an award; while, it started out like that, I am glad to say that they have steered clear from treating it as such. Also, during the nomination process, I did not say that I was opposed to the group, so this strange attack on myself is intriguing. Then, you attack my activity, which is odd, considering what I've done so far. So, taking everything into account, I am not going to presume to know what your intention was bringing this up, but I can assuredly tell you that what you did intend was counterproductive from the start. elliot (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there has been so much conjecture that my original points have been completely overlooked. I did not say opinion was invalid, I said objections, they are not the same. I was under the false impression that any admin related groups/articles that were created by consensus could not be removed, therefore a statement such as Your objections are invalid makes sense, but is wrong.

I did not separate my thoughts between Krusty and Elliot clearly. While Krusty did make a reasoned argument of his reservations in the initial stages of the discussion, not following it up indicates a willingness to abide by the group descision, taken between 25th march and 6th april. This is plenty of time for contributions, considering all but one of the active admins were on the site during this period.

Elliot, I should have taken care to separate any statements to your effect, considering you can't actualy oppose any nominations. While you held many reservations (and rightly so) about the groups creation, in the end you relented, and with certain adjustments you agreed to support the group. So I was wrong to say you were opposed to the group.

My point above, to reiterate, was that two of Krusty's oppose votes are based purely on scarcity of content, which was never discussed never mind implemented as a disqualification guide. It is fine to hold nominess to higher level required than by the guide, but not to use one that isn't there as the single reason for opposition. This is the context that my point about Elliot's contributions was made. Aliana has missed weeks at a time, while Elliot and Manic both missed a week in March. My point therfore is why discount someone for a paticular reason, while not bringing it up at all for someone else.

Any objections to someone being put in the group should be based on their contributions and not an objection to the group. This statement holds true, although as it was pointed out, nobody has worded it that way, so it was wrong in the context of actual content. However by using the above example, I believe Krusty to be objecting to the group but not directly stating it.

Skooma my point about credit is true, although included in the heat of the moment. I did not mean to imply that you were only making a comment because you created the page. The Nomination Guidelines are nearly word for word (excluding Trusted for Auto) mine. But, as pointed out to others, credit can be seen in the History. If you do not take the page seriously how can your Voting be taken seriously.

Excepting for Eshe, Kiz, and AKB, all the other points seem to be saying that it is wrong for me to have an opinion on this matter, can I ask if I have been proven wrong yet by Krusty.

Elliot, I can see where you are coming from, but if you read purely my statements, I don't believe you would come to the same conclusion. I was wrong to be so harsh with you, but I had no intention of being disruptive.

I would now ask that comments be kept to a minimum until Krusty has had his say, because only he can say if I have been wrong in my opinion of his contributions. And to clarify that is not to say that no-one elses comments matter, just that as Eshe has said, lets wait for the accused to have his say. The Silencer has spoken 07:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the uncomfortable silence, but I simply don’t know what I’m supposed to respond to. I voted like everyone else and I never said anything about ‘disqualifying the editors due to limited output’ but simply pointed out that I thought it was a good idea if we all read through each others’ edits instead of focusing on the exclamation marks. I gave Elliot my support, which basically means I support the consensus, even if I’m still opposed to the group in general. I’m not going to argue back and forth based on what I believe to be rational wiki-behavior, nor do I intend to explain my votes further. If the three users are seriously upset about my votes, they’re more than welcome to e-mail me or use some other discreet channel so we can avoid too much controversy – but my stance is not going to change no matter how long this discussion gets. --Krusty 07:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you did "oppose, because of edit rate", multiple times: the evidence is in the page history. Silencer's point is that since that's not one of the criteria for membership, doing so is as "valid" as saying "oppose, because of hair color". That prompted others to do the same, and since these aren't consensus decisions the consequences are obvious. Whether an objection (as distinct from the vote itself) actually needs to be "valid" or not isn't something I know (or, in this case, care) - the way I see it is that your vote is your vote, and since the only negative impact is on the Patroller group rather than the editors, that's your (plural) concern.

Silencer, there is a very thin line between DUCK and AGF at times (though I don't believe this is one of those times). But even if you're sure you smell a rat, inference is not evidence. If you're right, the truth will out someday when enough others smell it too, but until then you must AGF, because the alternative is chaos. (The joke about a mathematician, a physicist, an engineer, and a sheep springs to mind here for some reason).

That said, given all the recent drama I think it's a good thing that there are editors willing to question the actions of Patrollers etc when they don't understand or disagree with them, especially if they hope to join that group someday. Asking for a little transparency or clarification is something that should be encouraged even if (as in this case) it can run a little long sometimes.

Does it help to rephrase (what appears to be) the question as: "If someone casts a vote in a non-consensus situation and gives a reason that is not actually relevant, should the vote be treated as a comment/abstension until further explanation is given?" I think that's what Silencer is trying to get an answer to (and even if I'm wrong, I'm curious now myself). Aliana 17:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically anyone could oppose because of your hair color, at no point in there does it say what can't be a point in a casting vote. The Suggested Qualifications are just that - suggestions. The comment about the validity of a vote is not for others to decide, the point of making this a Patroller and Admin only vote is because these are the *trusted* members of the community, they might not always be right or fair but we trust them. I personally trust Krusty's judgement and find him to be a fair admin, I would not question how he votes and I don't think people should unless its clearly unfair, as Krustys said if you have a problem with somethings said - speak to him in private about it! --kiz ^talk_email 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The answer to this is simple. There are required criteria, and there are personal criteria. Some people (like Krusty) hold nominees to standards higher than the basic standards. That is perfectly acceptable. After all, isn't voting a purely subjective matter in the first place? We support or oppose people based on our personal ideas of what is required, and you shouldn't throw a fit when somebody else has a higher standard than you do. • JA^Talk 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you (both) for the answers. For the other aspects of your replies, if "the way I see it is that your vote is your vote" didn't make my personal stance clear I don't know what will. Aliana 19:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) First of all, can I get something straight in plain and simple English? The reason for all this drama is that some people don't believe that Krusty should be allowed to express his personal opinions and standards unless they fit in with consensus and set guidelines? During the voting he has in no way objected to the group - instead, he has chosen not to support nominees for very valid reasons. If Krusty was completely against the group, he obviously would have opposed Elliot's nomination as well, but he didn't. Everyone who votes has the right to speak their minds, and until recently I assumed that they were encouraged to, but I see now that this isn't the case. Aliana, I resent your implication that Krusty's comments influenced the opinions of myself and others - as though we were either unwilling or unable to form our own opinions. The fact that your nomination was directly opposed by the users brought into question by this topic leads me to be forced to take anything you say with a pinch of salt. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright--whoa, whoa. I think we've reached a point in this conversation where things are no longer productive. We seem to have successfully established that some comments were misunderstood, and we also seem to have established that Krusty (like anyone else) is permitted to vote however he pleases as long as he does so reasonably and in the spirit of what the group is meant to do.

At this point, however, the discussion is spiraling into something that seems petty, prickly, and unhelpful. Please, everyone, consider whether anything you have to add is both polite and productive before contributing further to this discussion. There's really nothing going on here worth fighting about. eshe^talk 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break

What's the conversation about now? Can we cut the drama here and focus on the question that Aliana rephrased, or any other very relevant questions? "If someone casts a vote in a non-consensus situation and gives a reason that is not actually relevant, should the vote be treated as a comment/abstension until further explanation is given?" And we could discuss the relevancy?

Personally I believe that edit count is pretty relevant. If someone takes a lot of breaks between editing, it's not always certain that they'll still be as good when they return. If someone has only 300 edits and the voter would like 400, that's fine--it gives a wider range of edits to sample and can show a greater grasp of wiki markup and the English language. The more edits are made, the more I am comfortable with the quality of the edits, so I find it completely relevant.

I fail to see how edit count is irrelevant to the voting process, as it is a part of the suggested guidelines here and on the Patroller page and, if you have too few edits, you are immediately disqualified from applying for Patroller status under the reason that more edits mean that the quality can be judged more accurately. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I agree, the content of the initial post has been addressed and its concerns responded to, so I propose we end this discussion to avoid raising tensions further than they already are. ThuumofReason 18:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Krusty, this statement only applys to this page and is purely my opinion. I believed that you were trying to undermine the group by submersive means. That is what I wanted to say, but as you can see it is a very controversal thing to say as it not only accuses you of being of bad faith, but also of some things that would get you a ban. I needed your input on my thoughts before I could say it. Unfortunatly not directly saying it resulted in a badly worded alternative, which still has some people confused. As above, I had reason to believe that you opposed the existance of the group, but my concerns were that you were deliberatly undermining the group, I am glad to see you say that you are accepting consesus, as that allays my concerns.

I may of course be wrong, but Krusty uses scarcity of content, which I see as relating to the timing of contributions, for instance, Aliana did not contribute for an entire six weeks, and has nothing to do with edit count, because clearly all nominees had well over the minimum guidelines.

The discussion for me is now over because Krusty has allayed my concerns. I will watch for further comment, but some of the pettyness in the comments has hurt me, and I do not wish to look at that again. The Silencer has spoken 19:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The above borders on a personal attack. I think Krusty made it very clear that that's exactly what he wasn't doing. I'm inclined to issue a warning. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) We really don't need to be making threats here. If there is anything relevant to the project page left to discuss, please do so productively. If not, it's probably best if we all just move on. eshe^talk 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Userpatroller Conflict

I've added as a disqualification to this page and Userpatroller that editors can not be members of both groups simultaneously. I didn't anticipate this situation when I set up the Userpatroller group, and the way the current code works, if someone is added to both Autopatrolled Users and Userpatrollers, the editor will effectively end up with full patroller permissions. It's basically a bug in the code, but I don't want to get into a significant code revamp -- especially if this going to be a one-user group for the foreseeable future. --Nephele^Talk 19:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to make being a userpatroller a disqualifcation, can we add skip captcha to this group, or does it already have it? That was the reason Elliot became a use patroller in the first place. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'd already given Autopatrolled Users skipcaptcha and tboverride permissions -- so they have the same non-patrolling perms as Userpatrollers (see Special:ListGroupRights). --Nephele^Talk 19:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that before, sorry. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Prev: None

Up: UESPWiki talk:Autopatrolled Users

Next: None