Forum:Changes to RuneScape:Administrators 2

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to RuneScape:Administrators 2
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 August 2010 by Liquidhelium.

I really liked Ajr's recent changes to the RS:A page. But, looking at it again, the page lists every single administrator we have on the wiki, active or not. I really don't think that's necessary, especially when we have a Special:ListUser page for that. The point of RS:A is not to be a list; rather, it is to document the rights and responsibilities of administrators. Furthermore, I do not believe that listing every single active administrator with a link to the talk page is going to help much, as users who go to RS:CU will have no idea which administrator is best for the specific problem. Think about it from the user's perspective: when looking at a monster list of 30+ names, which one do I pick?

So, I would like to propose that we reorganize the RS:A page (and by extension, RS:CU. Instead of listing every single administrator, we would have categories for problems that users would normally have. I have an example of it in my sandbox for those interested in a sample. (I picked a few sample administrators for demonstrative purposes).

This is exactly what I'm proposing:

  • Remove the list of inactive administrators and bureaucrats and replace them with links to Special:ListUser.
  • Leaving the bureaucrat and forumadmin lists alone, remove the list of active administrators and replace it with the subtitles in a fashion similar to the one I have in my sandbox. I thought of General, vandalism/maintenance, coding, and images help. Those who think of more categories are welcome to suggest them.

The way that administrators will be classified into the categories is more or less simple. Each administrator would volunteer for a position in the list. A requirement for volunteering should be that each individual administrator feels that he or she is very proficient in the subject at hand, and would be willing to expend the time/effort to direct users who come to their talk pages. Administrators are not required to volunteer for any list, and they may volunteer for more than one. This way, the page will be shorter and clearer, and any users looking for help would be better directed towards it. --LiquidTalk 20:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Note: As it is common knowledge that I am horrible with wiki code, anyone who finds a problem with my sandbox page is welcome to correct it.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 20:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. I wish I had something else to say, but you've said it all. ajr 23:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

See below. ajr 01:06, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Love it! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sure. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But why is the 'a' in 'Log Actions' capitalised? --Iiii I I I 23:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm a nub. Fixing. ajr 23:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Question - What if some administrators fall into multiple categories? ʞooɔ 23:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

...and they may volunteer for more than one...
--Aburnett(Talk) 00:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
However, I should say that I expect administrators to not volunteer unless they really think that they're the cream of the crop in that particular subject area. I want to keep the lists relatively short to avoid the same problem we have right now. --LiquidTalk 00:46, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I find the page useful at the moment and don't really see a need for it but it's not that bad of an idea. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:53, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional oppose - I'd like to see those tables added, but I would prefer the lists of active admins to remain, perhaps a little more subtly than now (Just a bulleted list). Otherwise, keep it as it is. 222 talk 07:14, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

See below.

Oppose If a person needs any kind of help, they should post it on the page for that, not seek out a single admin. That admin they ask help from may not be on for 3-24 hours or more, yet by posting on the page we made for that very purpose, they can get help much faster. And I really hate the idea of categorizing our admins. Yes, some are better at this or that or the other but categorizing people is always bad imo.--Degenret01 20:00, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out that if an administrator does not volunteer to be listed as specializing in a certain field they won't be listed as active, which I believe may cause some confusion as to whether or not unlisted administrators are still contactable and whatnot. This proposal would remove inactive administrators from the page, and then administrators who don't volunteer would be removed as well. I have to agree with Degen that categorizing people isn't the best choice. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 23:01, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

But why do we need a list of active administrators? What practical purpose does it serve? We can always provide links to [[:Category:Active administrators]]. --LiquidTalk 01:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
It serves the same practical purpose as that category. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 01:55, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So, assuming we link to Category:Active administrators and Category:Inactive administrators, would you be willing to support this? --LiquidTalk 01:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
But then all administrators would need to be in those categories. Some don't want those on their pages. And I don't just mean Liquidhelium :P ajr 02:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I never said that I didn't want it on my page. I said that I wanted it off my userpage, since I've moved everything into my sandbox. If you stuck the category into my sandbox (which is the userpage uses as a template), I'm fine with it. Although, I suppose you'll have to wait for my "inhospitable" attitude to subside so that I'll have a proper userpage again. --LiquidTalk 02:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to be confrontational, just pointing out that you and other admins don't want it on their userpage. ajr 02:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Your still missing that people are supposed to go to [RuneScape:User_help#Administrator_requests] for help, so how we are listed on [RS:A] actually has nothing to do with helping people, which is supposed to be why you made this thread. Now, if the point of the changes you are proposing is to let admins show off how awesome they are in a specific category to do some bragging, then your proposal makes sense.--Degenret01 03:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone goes to User help/Admin requests for help. Some people actually click the "Contact us" on the sidebar. There, they see a list of every single active sysop we have. I'd categorize for the benefit of THAT (RS:CU) page, not for the benefit of RS:A. --LiquidTalk 11:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just added a link and instruction to the top of the admin page. There is already one on the "contact us" page. Problem solved.--Degenret01 01:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per a long discussion with Rwojy on this, I'm changing to oppose. I believe that these changes will do more to "glorify" adminship that they will to allow users to get the help they need. Like Degen said, there is RS:AR for requesting admin help, and RS:CVU for reporting vandals. I am of the opinion that this change will further the already predominant attitude that administrators are better than other users, and that is something that I cannot support. I'll add more if I can unscramble my thoughts enough to come up with something else that makes sense :P ajr 01:06, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per ajr, obviously. LXGGBBucket detail.pngrwojy 02:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I now change to oppose entirely. Per Ajr and Degen. 222 talk 05:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I suppose I'll be satisfied with easy links to RS:AR. --LiquidTalk 20:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)