User talk:Kirbanzo/When is it time to request additional permissions?

This is a personal essay I'm currently writing to support a policy proposal on setting an account age minimum before they can request additional permissions (such as rollback, pending changes reviewer, and so on.

From personal experience with a failure to use Rollback properly, I've seen reason to suggest that edit count isn't enough to grant additional permissions. Although this is minutely implemented in pending changes reviewer applications already, I'm suggesting to add a large minimum account age to all non-auto granted user roles (besides extended confirmed and confirmed, as they have auto versions) to stop inexperienced users from using permissions with little experience.

I suggest a 6-month to 2-year period where a Wikipedia user cannot request additional rights. 6 months for most additional permissions (rollback, pending changes reviewer, template editor, etc.), and 2 years for high-risk permissions (admin, steward, CheckUser, etc.) with some variation if deemed reasonable. This would buffer the amount of inexperienced users that receive tools they do not know how to use properly. And there should be no way to cheat the system by just creating an account, being idle (besides a few edits to reach some edit bars for perms), and suddenly requesting permissions. Supposedly a bot could report a low activity rate (essentially time active, which would require a threshold for when an account that has been idle is considered inactive, against account age) when someone applies for a user right in order to avoid the aforementioned problem.

There's no reason to not raise the bar some to make sure users getting additional rights are able to use them responsibly. As such, I believe this change to policy will be relatively uncontroversial.

Dangers of relatively unexperienced users being granted additional permissions
As I mentioned, I have some personal experience with realizing I'm too inexperienced for a permission.