# Forum:Do we need another discussion on the Wikian?

Forums: Yew Grove > Do we need another discussion on the Wikian?

Hi guys, recently ingame there have been rumblings about the process for giving out The Wikian title. I'm going to focus on one specific aspect in my proposal, and quickly summarize some other issues. Feel free to expand on any of them or add other topics if you think they're warranted.

Recent edits

Most notably on RuneScape:The Wikian/Chaos Monk people have suggested that users should have recent edits to be given the title. I think that this recency bias discriminates against users based on when they contributed to the wiki. We should inherently state that one person's contributions are more valuable because they happened more recently; what makes someone's contributions in 2006 any less valuable than someone else's contributions in 2016? If anything I'd argue the 2006 edits were more important because they were very important to expanding the wiki's small volume of information in its infancy. The title is not meant to be exclusive; I don't think it's fair to the users who made significant contributions years ago to be held out just because they're not currently active. If you compare the bodies of work that some of our older users have had, I can definitely say they've been more significant to the wiki than many of our newer users who have passed requests for the title.

Looking at the guidelines for the title, "recent" is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria. Obviously this doesn't mean that users can't, but if it's going to become a de facto requirement then it should be stated. However, I think we should go in the other direction, and either discourage or disallow this line of reasoning in the Wikian threads (similar to what was decided in Forum:Certain unfair RfA arguments...).

TOO recent edits

This has also come up on RuneScape:The Wikian/NYX TRYX and RuneScape:The Wikian/Nz Kitty. The guidelines say 2 weeks, should that be revised?

Significant edits

What counts as significant?

Feel free to edit the nom message with other issues if you want. --LiquidTalk 23:21, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

## Discussion

Support getting rid of recency bias when giving out the title - Basically, we should look at the guidelines as written and not add unofficial criteria. --LiquidTalk 23:21, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Support removal of time bias - That is, As long as they are active in the Clan Chat or Discord within the past.. Year or so. 23:24, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the rules and guidelines are fine as it is, and this is something that should be taken on a case by case basis. -- 23:25, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

But the proposal is to basically follow the guidelines and not add stuff that isn't written... --LiquidTalk 23:31, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out how this is going to be largely influenced by inactive people who want the title, receive it, and then never do anything again. -- 23:32, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
But that was the whole point of this proposal: we shouldn't discriminate based on time. Everyone is entitled (get it? haha) to contribute to discussions regardless of when they were most active, and we shouldn't hold being most active a long time ago against them. --LiquidTalk 23:34, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
Not holding being most active a long time ago against them, we're holding being last active a long time ago against them. 23:36, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
But why does the title have to be that exclusive? It's not game changing or anything. How does their past contribution not matter at all? Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 23:36, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Support - I'm not entirely sure why past contributions are not accepted in regards to receiving the title. There shouldn't be any weighing with past and recent contributions. Why does their wiki activity even matter? As time passes, our priorities change. Perhaps people have families now or have a more time consuming job than before that they can no longer edit the wiki as before. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 23:28, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Don't make this shitty - This title was envisioned as an easy way to make new contributors feel appreciated, and to attract new blood. Making this into an unnecessarily hard to get status symbol is just going to make people less likely to contribute, completely defeating the purpose. Anyone who's opposing a good faith, non-trivial contributor's title nomination should seriously consider their reasons and how their votes negatively affect the editing community. ʞooɔ 23:36, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The guidelines are fine as is. They were decided in Forum:The Wikian and by right people have the ability to support or oppose a discussion for a reason they see fit. The people who complained about Chaos Monk's nomination not being accepted are perhaps those that didn't bother to participate in the discussion/nomination in the first place (RS:C#Silence is the weakest form of consensus). I personally feel that users should be active enough and making contributions to the wiki regularly enough to receive the title. The guidelines are JUST guidelines, they aren't hard set rules. Neither should they be. While people should not treat one nomination different to another based on who the person is, they have a right to deny it based on inactivity, which I think is the main reason why people like Chaos Monk have a problem with it. This was all discussed on the original Yew Grove thread for this. Can we all just remember that we are talking about an in-game cosmetic title here, too? I don't think its a hard "guideline" at all to be an active contributor in order to receive a title that is designed for those that contribute. jayden 23:40, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Support ignoring recency of contributions. --Iiii I I I 23:48, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like if you're wanting the wikian title, you should have at least some recent edits. Am I saying 1000 edits in the last month? No, I just want to see someone making actual edits to the wiki (maybe 50 across the last month or 2), opposed to making none (or very, very few) and then making their nomination. I think it is the least you could do for the wiki and community. I think the biggest issue with the wikian isn't how it goes towards inactive sysops who just make their first edits in literal years to get the title, but instead with how it is on things like Sparky Kitty and Nyx who are making great contributions, but are still opposed for not being around that long.

Also the griping about this in the clan chat after the fact and how evil we are, instead of commenting on the actual discussions so a thread like this would be unnecessary. 23:55, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Support removal of time requirement Although I agree with cook's point that the title is useful for attracting new editors (Who knows if this is actually working), I also believe that past editing should be recognized. Think about it this way: If the title was made available two years earlier, those edits would be considered valid for the purpose of the title and it could have been applied for then. The edits are no more or less valuable to the wiki just because of when the title became available. Pikachu lv95 (talk) 00:01, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - So my main thing is that I don't think it's fair that our guidelines are inconsistently applied literally depending on who comments on a thread. I was thinking of proposing some kind of criteria that auto-qualifies you unless you did something egregiously terrible. I thought having any kind of expanded userright or usergroup on the wiki would be sufficient. So, anyone who had rollback or custodian, was part of the ET, was a chat moderator, forum moderator (RIP), etc would automatically be qualified. I don't think this is a perfect solution, but here's some inconsistencies that I found:

Note: When I link to Special:Contributions, it's set to contributions starting from the month before the nomination.

I don't think it's fair that Chaos Monk doesn't have the title, but Huanghe, Gangsterls, Stelercus, and Urbancowgurl all do. Take a look for yourself. They're all old/inactive admins, why should Chaos Monk be any different? I don't think it's fair that King Kolton doesn't have the title, but Kamikze and Corn all do. They're all ET members who've nominally edited the wiki, what's the difference? Again, take a look.

This shouldn't be an exclusive club thing, and I think it's absolutely crazy that we can be so unfair to users just based on who shows up to comment in low-traffic threads. I proposed not devaluing earlier contributions as a remedy, but if someone can come up with a better one, I'm all ears. --LiquidTalk 01:42, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Afaik Stel, Corn, Huan, Urban and Cow have all been doing one of these things: project involvement, community interaction, generally helping out. So they have been active in the wiki, not with editing, but with other stuff. I don't even know who Chaos Monk is in-game, nor do I remember seeing him. And I don't recall seeing Kolton either. 02:01, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I'll concede Stelercus and Huanghe as they're active ingame, but that still leaves the comparison to Gangsterls. Also, I haven't seen Urbancowgurl ingame or on the wiki or in discord in a very long time.oops i just didn't know her discord name Chaos Monk is usually on when you're asleep, he's been around a good amount. I've seen Kolton around about as much as Kamikaze across all media. --LiquidTalk 02:07, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Urbancowgurl is in the discord alot, she goes by the name Siera as her nickname. She's even radmin'd. (Although to be fair so are other people who havent done anything in forever) -- 03:03, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I am extremely active ingame, I'm just not in RSW. Feel free to visit EE or pm me, my pm is always on except during warbands. I agree with what Liquid and others have said about recency bias, though I have to go read Chaos Monk's nomination now to see if it was a case. I did make a few edits after nominating myself, but the reason for those was more that I had more free time (hence my return to the game/wiki) and knowledge on the subjects I edited, not that I felt it might help my cause (5 more edits shouldn't really make a difference). The timeframe in which a contribution is made should not have any bearing on a user's eligibility; just set a threshold for what constitutes a sufficient or significant contribution and evaluate all users against the same benchmark. I also disagree with Twig's suggestion of activity being measured by participation in RSW cc, since that introduces bias against wikians who are not in the wiki clan.  Gangsterls  talk 02:27, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Current guidelines are ok, but could use some extra work - If someone has been away for long, or is very new to wiki, we might not know him/her at all, even our old pals change. Past matters, ones past tells a story about what kind of person he or she used to be, and what kind of person he or she could be today. When we give out the wikian title for a person, what happens next? Will the person tell every non-wikian he or she meets in game to fuck off? Will s/he feel superior to non-wikian titled people? The changes of this happening is of-course slim, but this exactly why I want to know the people who we entrust with the title. Past matters, present matters more, and we should always be cautious about the future.

And seeing how some people recently have been salty and angry and vulgar when they haven't got the title, that's just silly. You don't do wiki stuff for the title, you get the title because you do wiki stuff. I think the current guidelines are fine but could use some elaboration so we could have more mutual agreement on those guidelines? 02:00, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that people can change, we are willing to entrust these users with wiki sysop rights and clan chat ranks upon returning. I don't think that argument for the title holds water considering the relative power/usefulness of sysop rights vs an ingame title. --LiquidTalk 02:10, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Whilst what you said is true and has been working, I'd like to point out that damage done to wiki can be repaired more quickly than removing the title from malicious user. Hence I wouldn't personally mind if admins were auto-qualified for the title, as long as we still know they're good people. 02:24, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
This is a very true point, it's easier to remove rights because we have control over this. If someone took advantage of the title, that would be down to Jagex and wouldn't be viable. If anything, we'd get the backlash for it. jayden 03:07, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Sure but then we'd need to have requirements for the Wikian be more stringent than that of bureaucrats, rather than hand it out to any new users who make 150 or so good edits as a way to encourage them. --LiquidTalk 03:12, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I support eradicating the time bias, preferably state it in the guidelines as well. The quality if contributions is important, not the recency. Should people such as e.g. Hofmic, LordDarkPhantom, Psycho Robot or Evil Yanks suddenly pop by, request the title and then disappear without a trace, there should be no doubt about it - they deserve the title for their past contributions. Keep the two-week-requirement; it's quite minimal and I don't feel comfortable handing out the title to people who make fifty edits in a week and then abscond after getting the title. 06:45, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot more. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 06:48, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Support removal of recency bias per Powers and Fswe1. Huanghe63 (talk) 07:04, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comments - I think the biggest thing that needs changing is people's perspective on the title. Many people (off-site) are often claiming that Jagex clearly has some favouritism towards us. Honestly, this is understandable. People think that the title is out of their reach because they've never edited before, or that it's just some exclusive thing they're never going to get.

The title needs to become more approachable. We need to start supporting people who have only one hundred mainspace edits or have only edited for a short time (e.g). I don't care if people start editing for two weeks, get the title, and then drop off the face of the wiki because to me that's still a win for us. That's two weeks' worth of contribution we may never have had.

In terms of what Liquid's actually saying, I think people who have had previous contribution should get the title yea. Haidro 09:57, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Support allowing historic edits - If we had the title back then, they would have gained it. I think the community opinion of what the title should represent needs to evolve, much the same as our expectations of admins has over the years. One day we'll all have roughly the same opinion as Haidro and wonder what made us so petty.

Support but only if its 1000 or more I also know Gaz don't have the ability to do it but, removing the wikian title from an account could be a good thing. For some sad reason, some people think we are 'elitist' and I personally think that some account with the title will be RWT in the future for two reason. The first is since people think we are 'elitist' that have the 'talk to me faggot badge' (refering to some people who saw the RSW badge in the documentary) so maybe some will be stupid enough to buy an account with it to look 'elitist'. The second and probably most logical is, that the title will be used to scam new/returning player, since Jagex used to have an official wiki some people might think we are entrusted players choosed by Jagex staff, if they think that I think it could be easy to someone to misinform the player and eventually led him into a scam.

11:42, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

wat 11:50, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
1000 edits?? Your first point doesn't even make any sense - RWT/selling accounts is against the rules so there's nothing we can do to get around that. No one will want to buy an account just for a damn title too lmao. If a new/returning player saw the title I don't think their first assumption would be the ORSW... That thing did not last long. And again, being led into a scam is not in our control. The benefits outweigh these potential (and by potential, I probably mean 0.1%) negatives. Haidro 11:55, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
People are used to Jagex staff having crowns before their name, not a title. I'm sure there's not an issue there. jayden 14:03, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Frankly that suggestion just makes us seem mair elitist, saying that somebody's ineligible cause they didnae help enough in the past, or that we'd only give it tae those we deem extremely trustworthy. Alsae Jagex have official twitter accounts, does that mean every twitter user is seen as being endorsed by Jagex? 15:10, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Wow haidro who wouldn't pay 25 schmeckles for a title SMH fetus is my son and I love him. 14:16, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I agree wi' TyA's point, and honestly I'd say 20 edits in the past year is enough when considering historical edits. The issue isnae that we're refusing tae consider historical edits, but that some of us prefer them tae be backed up by recent edits. Powers38 returned 3 weeks agae, and made aboot 100 edits and made great use of his tools afore he was nominated. Gangsterls and Huanghe baith continued editing while their nomination process wis ongoing. Is it really that unreasonable tae ask fer a handful of edits either prior or during the nomination period as a sign that they dae actually wish tae still make the wiki a better place? I can understand that many of those aulder users dinnae have the time that they used tae, but it only takes 10 minutes tae make a handful of useful edits. Like Gaz said, there's plenty needs sorting, and I can easily give Chaos Monk a quick task that'll take care of the inactivity issue 15:10, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Considering the wider implications of this thread (activity as a whole), I was initially a little conflicted, but my thoughts have coalecesed overnight.

We need to be more open with giving out the title. Keeping it restricted like we have is not helping us.

There's a small group of players that spew bile about us in the forums and other media. While it is mostly nonsense, there are a few grains of truth there, especially following recent title nominations. We need to not give them legitimacy.

I would rather have hundreds/thousands of people running around in-game with the title than be the sole user with the title. Its great to be hanging out in the Tower of Voices on world 39 with like 3-6 other wikians chatting away in public chat - why can't it be like this on every world, there and at the max guild, Burthorpe, the Varrock grand exchange, and popular skilling spots? I know it feels good to be part of an exclusive group, but we could do far more good by being open.

I'm not going to restate arguments others have made, but I agree with Liquid, Cook, and Haidro. I would go with a blanket approval of everyone that has passed a formal request and is still in good standing - admins, clan admins, sergeants, events team, (former) chat moderators, (former) forum admins, IRC ops. I could even go to rollback, custodian, and AWB.

However, I do also agree with Ty - people need to comment on the discussions. This is a problem that a lot of other discussions have. Not enough people comment, because not enough people care. Even on a single-person level, there aren't enough active people about to bounce technical questions and ideas with. I don't know if we have a real solution to this, but encouraging people with the title may help. 18:30, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion about older/inactive editors aside, I have always wanted this title to be something to encourage new editors and make them feel appreciated. I have supported having more stringent requirements, as I felt that this would make people receiving the title feel more valued and that they would be more likely already "hooked" into wiki editing. However, if the current inconsistencies in how much editing people want to see are is causing nominees to feel discouraged and is making people feel negatively about the wiki then I would be happy to go with a lower amount of editing requirement.

Could we perhaps agree on ~100-200 constructive (i.e. not user/talk) edits as a standard? I still don't think we should blanket approve people based on group membership though. Maybe we could even put a suggested edit count in the guidelines to dispel some of the confusion about we are looking for. Aside from that we can only encourage disgruntled people to try editing: we can point them to editing guides and stuff that needs doing. I have seen people complain of favouritism - though it seemed to mainly come from us being the only fansite to have this title, maybe making the title seem achievable might help. 19:21, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Additional Comment/Scattered & Conflicted Thoughts - I have a lot of thoughts, so bear with me. They're not really organized, either.

Cook, Isobel, and Gaz all raise good points. I, myself, know what it's like to be a discouraged new editor, and this isn't the path I think the title should take. That being said, I think it's important to distinguish between people who actively edit the wiki and thus rightfully earn the title, and people who come back to the wiki just to get in an game cosmetic using the leverage of an RfA/CM that happened over 5 years ago and then never touch the wiki again. As some of you may know, I've been doing a lot of digging into the wiki's history - Mostly for the sake of my own curiosity, and an equal part because I was bored. However, from what I've seen, there seems to be a trend of people coming back to the wiki for ${\displaystyle x}$ reason and then leave again.

Frankly, I'm extremely conflicted on this issue. On one hand, I feel we're being extremely redundant - the guidelines were decided and finalized in Forum:The Wikian, and everyone seemed pretty happy with the results. On the other hand, I agree with those above me (both literally and status-wise) when they say to, for example, "not make this shitty" - Blunt, cook, but you're absolutely right. And as for Gaz, I concur on the point that not everyone actually participated in those discussions. I, myself, didn't even know exactly what was going on at the time.

Looking through this forum, I'm seeing names that I've either never seen before, or seen extremely seldom. If I didn't know better, I'd say that this was almost rigged, seeing at how quickly all the people who've been inactive for years replied to a newly created thread. However, although I may be naive to some issues, I'm not that paranoid. I'm also reading in this particular thread about us being considered assholes or other unfavourable names just because we have a title? I try to stear clear of RSW clan chat tbh, so I don't know the exact details, but if someone could give me some clarification that would be dandy.

I've had discussions with a couple of people here and there, namely Kent who seems to make it his personal mission that everyone gets the title, as he finds it unfair that we're the only fansite that has a title. I agree with him on some fronts - Whilst it is a massive honour to own a "the Wikian" title myself, there are people who deserve recognition for their massive contributions to other fansites - One of my closest friends, Jon (only Kev knows who this guy is but whatever) contributed immensely to [Insert Fansite Here] (The name escapes me at the moment but he got to know Mod Infinity), yet he doesn't have a title. There are people, albeit few, who put thousands of hours of work into the official Jagex wiki, yet they don't have a title. Obviously, this is something we have no control over - However, I feel it's important to remember when we have discussions like these - sometimes I wonder if the title is causing too much trouble than what its worth.

Finally, I think I'll make this statement - Edit counts are a bad thing to judge. Recency of the edits is also kind of unfavourable. I think this is where our pseudo bureaucracy comes into play: We have guidelines. We vote as a community. The majority consensus is final. We should be judging this on a case by case basis. Someone with 200 edits of creating full length pages completely from scratch shouldn't be better than someone with 200 edits of adding hyperlinks and templates like `{{external|osrs}}` - At the same time, 200 edits of fucking around with personal templates on their userspace should be recognized as "not a useful contribution". (please note that I am guilty of fucking with userspace pages alot). Things that come into play when judging this should be their character, and if we feel like they should represent the wiki.

This is all I can really say at this point. I might have more to add later, as I have been known to change my opinions if a more logical one comes about. TL;DR: We are lucky to have the title. We should vote on a case by case basis using guidelines. We shouldn't think one edit is more useful than another solely based on the number of characters added/removed, and we shouldn't give blanket approval to people just because they've earned a usergroup right in the past. -- 20:11, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Also we shouldnt just judge by the weight of the edits, I did a fuckton of edit that were big
but that was because I was helping Cook with the bestiary project (even if I think in this
case it was a relatively long thing to do and one the thing that made me earn the tile) anyway
Im saying big edits arent automaticly good edits and we shouldnt judge the edits too quickly
based on their size. 21:08, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
To Scuzzy - You've said a lot of different things here, some of which I agree with and others I don't, but I want to address your first paragraph specifically. Do you feel that someone who is currently active "rightfully" deserves the title over someone with identical contributions made two or five years earlier? If so, why? And if inactive players do come back to the wiki to claim a title which they should be entitled to by their contributions, why is that an issue? Of course it would be great for them to start editing again and it should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be coerced by the potential "reward" of a title, especially if they have already earned it. That's more likely to turn people off to the wiki's bureaucracy than encourage them to start editing again IMO. If someone has earned the title it should be given freely upon nomination, regardless of future intentions towards the wiki (which can be difficult to discern anyway). As you said, it's just a cosmetic. If someone's only edit in the past 5 years was to self-nominate for the title, but they had made hundreds or thousands of valuable edits in the past, I would give them my support with no hesitation.  Gangsterls  talk 23:54, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral...kinda - I don't know what I want to add, other than in the failed request for the title involving Unlucky4Ever, that one was understandably denied. Parts of everything I want to say are summed up by Scuzzy and Pikachu... 01:12, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Recency reqs are BS - Does it really have to be said that RS:TITLE/Users isn't a cool kids club? It's not high school guys lol why are we being so exclusionary based on recent edits? Tbh I'm apologetic that I haven't been looking at the open nominations (on anything) much but I feel like if more people did, they'd support. The people watching it kinda... seemed like they were just around to shut it down lol. Chaos was sysopped before most (all? cba to check) of the people who opposed even joined the wiki and did stuff. Why wouldn't old contribs count to a new title? ???????????? Smh 01:34, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Support removing the discrimination. There's no need for this to be going on. It's not stated in the criteria, and nor should it be. Any work they've done 6 years ago is just as (if not more) valuable as any work done yesterday. Kent Knifen (talk) 01:45, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Keep/slightly extend two week requirement - It's short, easily attainable requirement and I see no reason to remove it – if anything it should be increased by a couple of weeks. I don't have a problem with allowing those who are inactive (but have made significant edits in the past) to receive the title, so long has they are both a) still active in-game, and b) have been contacted to see whether they actually want the title before someone nominates them. As for defining significant, don't make it too specific. Maybe providing a couple of examples would be all right (I've no opinion on what they should be), just so long as it's not comprehensive. Temujin 19:46, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Support removing recent/old discrimination - Time is fine, but saying that someone with lots of history shouldn't receive the title, but someone with 100-200 edits recently should?.. Doesn't seem right. I think people that have contributed to the wiki, and are reasonably good people should have earned the title. And people that have recently helped should be seen for a brief amount of time(2-4 weeks) before being able to determine their values and if they are here for the title and nothing else. - 21:55, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Support removing recency requirement, give out title freely to new and old - Recency edit requirements for anyone who ever had elevated privileges on the wiki, of any kind, or significant mainspace/project/template edits are really ridiculous (600+, maybe? Just an arbitrary number here). I appreciate Liquid's comment that there's an argument that older edits were potentially more significant than newer ones due to the relative size of the community in both time periods, but I don't like the idea of dividing the wiki into "us vs them" which is really what so many of these discussions seem to devolve into. Anyone who helped with the project in a meaningful way can be considered a wikian. If they (we) ask... let them have it. If they play RuneScape but don't edit now, I think they should still have it. People's priorities and interests definitely change over time, but that doesn't erase the time and effort they devoted in the past. I was an active editor ten years ago but I absolutely still consider myself a Wikian. I agree with anyone above who said that there shouldn't be a high barrier to get the wikian title for new users. Hardcore players who like titles and like to collect things are going to put in the work to get something like that, and what's wrong with more people having the title? It's free publicity and we get some extra help with the wiki, and maybe a chance to convert people to long-term editors. I know we're the largest fansite, but there's literally nothing wrong with getting our name out there as often as we possibly can. A lot of people seem to think that users who join the wiki just to get the title are only ever going to use The Wikian title. Pretty sure that the next time a cool or hard-to-obtain title comes out, like 90%+ are going to switch it to that to show it off. And that's not a bad thing and not something to even worry about. We get the publicity in the meantime, and if anyone is concerned that these "fair-weather editors" are going to make us look bad... just wait a little bit and they'll move on to the next shiny thing. What's the big deal? Remove the unwritten recency requirement, let any old editor/admin have the title if they come back and request it. Give it out to new users freely and stop acting like we're some elite club. Christine 01:54, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Support removing recency - I agree with the above, and I regret revoking my support for ChaosMonk based on that, so I totally agree that the title should be more open and don't have silly requirements like recency. Like others have stated before, it shouldn't matter if their edits were now or 10 years ago, if they were helpful then that should be recognised. 17:18, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Support time and effort requirement - When the title came out, I was approached stating that I qualified for it because I'm an admin, even though I haven't made a useful contribution in several years. I haven't even had RuneScape installed in who knows how long. I don't believe that someone like me should be called a "Wikian". I'm not a Wikian. I don't edit the wiki, let alone use the wiki. It is absolutely astounding that we have people returning for what appears to be the sole purpose of attaining the title. The Wikian should be a title given to wikians. The little people that painstakingly take time out of their day to edit the wiki. That number is few and far between. The vast majority of our traffic is for Readers, not Wikians. Old admins that are not active on the wiki are not Wikians.

"Oh but they edited so much 7 years ago!" How in the hell am I supposed to even know if that is the same person using the account. I don't know any of you. You weren't there on update day. You weren't there when Wikia made that awful change. People returning in hopes of getting the title should show you how prestigious people regard this title as. On the first thread, the consensus seemed to be that the title was not anything special and that it should not be regarded as something hard to get. Then... Why do we have an entire section dedicated to supporting or opposing potential The Wikian candidates? Why are you people not giving them out like candy like previously intended? That's because there is an invisible line that has been drawn. The line between people who the mass thinks deserves it and people who the mass thinks don't deserve it. Sorry but your intention of making this title thing not a big deal has failed with the execution of the title requests.

With that being the case, the title should be given to Wikians. Not Readers, not Used-To-Be-Wikian-4-Years-Agos. The actual name of the title, "The Wikian", implies that you are someone who has an active presence on the wiki and you do what you can to help out. It's not an "ask and you shall receive" title and it's not a "make 5000 mainspace edits first" title either. Currently it's somewhere in between, randomly decided by the people who make an effort to comment on the requests for the title. If we're having this discussion again, then obviously a clear line needs to be drawn. In conclusion... The Wikian title should be used for Wikians, defined as active editors. Should anyone care about my lonely oppose, we can discuss what defines an active editor at a later date (though the implication should be obvious compared to how the titles are currently being handled). :3= 17:10, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

I stand with fergie. 17:15, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
This is everything I thought but couldn't put into words. jayden 17:21, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of the title and how it is given out, dragging specific people into this is ridiculously petty. I've made literally thousands of edits in the past few days, finishing off multiple projects on the wiki that have been going on for ages. Had you read my nomination, you would have seen that I have plans of more things to do, and I know you can see in Discord that I am actively working with multiple people to continue improving the wiki and already have a bunch of other projects in the works. So there is literally nothing wrong with obtaining the title as being a catalyst for getting anyone into editing, whether it's for the first time or the second time or the tenth time. If we want people to edit and it costs us literally nothing to do, then give out the damn title. Christine 17:28, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
Counterpoint: do we really care why these people are returning? Let's stop pretending that this title is some noble thing that only the righteous among us should be bestowed -- it's always been a way to get editors, period. If we can get someone like Christine doing projects again (seriously!), why do we give a shit that she hasn't been active for years? We should be happy that we got a great editor back in the fold by offering something that costs us literally nothing. If that leaves a weird taste in your mouth, get over it -- I'll take that deal every time. ʞooɔ 17:40, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly how I feel. Well worded fergs, wholehearted support. -- 14:52, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
She came back for the title. She made those edits for the title. If she did not need to make those edits for the title, she wouldn't've. If we had just given her the title for being active years ago, those edits would not have been made. So yes, I believe we should have them make some recent edits if they want the title, to actually encourage them to edit, which is what we want. 17:44, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
Fergie's point appeared to have been expressing offense at the idea that old admins are returning to make edits solely for the title. Your position seems to be different (in that you support requiring old editors to make new edits, even it's ostensibly for that reason). Your response doesn't make much sense, given the comment chain it's under. ʞooɔ 17:49, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong, ty. "She" would've made 20-30 edits if "she" just wanted the title. "She" made 2400, so the edits were not just for the title. The edits were for the wiki. They are not "some" recent edits. You all can bash inactive admins coming back "for the title" if you seriously believe the argument has merit (I disagree) but you have picked the wrong person to make an example of. You would not want the wiki to lose the contributions I made and it is better for it, regardless of what got me in the door. Christine 17:56, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
I support a time requirement, as my support states. If old admins want to come back and get the title, sure, but there should be some sort of cut off first. If new editors want to get the title, sure, but there should be some sort of cut off first. The way it currently is, as Ty said, new editors are being denied the title for not meeting the supporters/opposers arbitrary time requirements but old editors are simply because they've been here before. There is no consistency in the handling of the requests for the title. 18:03, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

Another commentI still support but yeah 1000 edits might be too much... also I agree with Cook that the title is not a noble thing (wich many non-wikian think is), we shouldnt have restriction of the recency, because like Christine said if we make it too rare people will just edit for the shake of the title (wich I asssume we dont want) and them leave. People should not be forced to make new edits, we want them to edit in goodwill not rush to get the title, and if someone had forgot/lost their wikian skills or just dont want/dont have time to edit, the title should be just a thank you for your contributions regardless of the time.

16:44, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen on different Wikis, 1k edits is considered rather high depending on where. Cook also said that it's meant to make new contributors feel appreciated. Seeing one thousand edits being that is rather a lofty thing when the majority of stuff can be edited rather fast by people. 22:30, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, because I don't want my opinion misrepresented, I don't mind if people edit just for the title. I don't actually think that many people will do that and then leave, so it's not a concern of mine. But I do agree the title is a thank you for people's' contributions, past and present. Christine 22:48, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I've returned, received my title, and still occasionally edit after receiving the title. Why is it so horrible for people to receive the title? It's not game changing in any way. If people receive title, they can receive and have more of an incentive to edit (because people recognize them) or they can leave. If people did not and want to edit to solely receive the title, I can't see why is that bad. We would get more editors and perhaps they *may* even stay after receiving it. We can always judge if their edits are good quality or not. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 23:10, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

## Proposal

Comment/Proposal Well, I didn't have much time to share my full opinion before, so here goes. I have noticed a trend with the Wikian title nominations where people will oppose a nomination simply because they don't know them. I feel this is fundamentally wrong, and goes against the very nature of the title's purpose. We're supposed to be encouraging people to contribute to the Wiki. By opposing their request for a title, we're not only driving them away, but also giving our Wiki the reputation of being a very hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere. A wiki and its contributors are supposed to be a friendly center that players can come to when they need assistance, but by showing ourselves as being unwelcoming to potential editors, we're giving ourselves a very bad name. Evidence of this came to light very recently, when an owner of the Wikian title| suggested a prestigious title for livestreamers. People on the forums were deadset against it (including myself), and reference to the Wikian title only fueled these negative feelings. It seems, based off that thread, that many people believe the Wikian title only exists for this Wiki's few elite (its "inner circle," essentially).

We need to move away from opinion-based voting. I talked with Cook recently, and we halfway agreed that some form of change needed to happen. I volunteered to rewrite the Wikian title requirements, but have not shared them - until now.

Above is an entirely new system of Wikian title requirements that people would need to reach before acquiring the title. The Google Doc focuses on more "hard-set" requirements, than "soft requirements" that require a consensus as we have now. The plan in the Google Doc would still need to be reviewed by a Wiki bureaucrat, but they would simply be checking to ensure the person and application meet the requirements for the title, and the person is not widely known for negative reasons. Let me know what you guys think - this might require a whole new discussion to take place. Kent Knifen (talk) 23:37, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

While in general I am in favor of doing away with a consensus based system for the title, I don't think this is it. It's way too bureaucratic. A few general first impression thoughts I had:
• Revoking the title is more trouble than it's worth.
• The combination of contribute to affiliate wikis and show an interest to the community (itself defined as participate in 3 fora, join discord, or join the RSW clan) combine to basically means you have to join Discord, or join the clan if you don't want to edit affiliate wikis. Not all editors will be interested in the off-site portions of the wiki, and this will unfairly discriminate against them.
• Requiring a nomination to find 50 quality edits with such a long list of criteria will make the nominations process prohibitively difficult.
• Requiring a bureaucrat to approve means this will take forever.
I personally think an approval voting process (think UOTM), where people are only allowed to support and users need a certain threshold of supports to pass should remove a lot of the issues with opposes, but any system that is criteria-dependent has to be much much simpler to work. --LiquidTalk 23:55, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
You make some fair points. Although I don't think joining the Discord is a big deal (nothing says you have to use Discord ;) ), I s'pose another alternative would work. I'm open to suggestions on that front. As for the 50 quality edits, that is mainly just a check to ensure people aren't editing their own user pages - I'm very open to discuss criteria for "quality edits" and how someone would show them. I'm not sure why waiting for a bureaucrat to approve it would take forever - can you elaborate on this? We could scale it down to an Admin approving it if it's for lack of bureaucrats willing to take part. Kent Knifen (talk) 00:17, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose proposal - Okay, before I get into my actual reason for opposing let me break down the requirements you've proposed. The first requirement is relatively fine - it is basically what we have currently. The second requirement? Not so much. You expect the person who is proposing to find fifty examples of 'quality edits'? 50? Do you understand the effort that may be required for such an action? You have said yourself we're driving people away, and we're only going to drive people away more by requiring them to prove that they are deserving. The time and effort that may be required into finding examples of edits they may be deemed 'quality' could take long enough that a person simply becomes so fed up and decides not to even nominate themselves/the person after all. The third requirement shouldn't even be there, it's a given. If you are nominated for the title/you self-nominate, you should surely be showing an interest already, no? The fourth requirement regarding mainspace edits to affiliate wikis? No. Yes sure, we shouldn't disallow sister/affiliate wikis, but don't have a hard set requirement just for them. It doesn't matter if you have to only meet, as you have written, "5 out of 6" of the requirements - that requirement instantly becomes the only one you can get a 'free pass' on if you only edit this wiki, and not an affiliate. Okay, I'm not going to go any further - this is too much for me to break down and disagree with. These requirements are utterly stupid. But let me explain my real reason - I completely disagree with you regarding removing consensus. Consensus is what makes up the wiki, it allows us to work together as a community to achieve our common goals. All requests for roles on the wiki are done by consensus, the title should be no different. We have RS:C for a reason. I quote, "Consensus is the wiki's fundamental model for decision-making. It is reached by a group as a whole; it seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of the relevant parties." If we remove the need for consensus, even just on this one topic (the title), we are walking a dangerous path. I'm sorry, but your proposal is a big no. jayden 00:02, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
First off, I'm willing to negotiate/compromise/discuss all of this, hence me posting it here for people to talk about. I understand listing 50 quality edits can be a hassle, and I'd be interested to hear a better alternative to this. For the Sister/Affiliate Wikis, please read the FAQ at the bottom, about Sister/affiliate Wikis. It's not a requirement, and the list of criteria says it is not mandatory. Lately the consensus portion of the nominations has been running into trouble (hence this whole discussion page) because people are voting based on popularity/personal opinion than actual work someone has done. Kent Knifen (talk) 00:17, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to be hostile here. Simply put though, these requirements have a lot of flaws and frankly are too complex. We shouldn't be making it harder for people to get the title (through the complexity of your proposal), nor should we be making it easier (by removing the consensus aspect). I'm not willing to ignore RS:C. I don't agree with having a UoTM-like system, because it just became a popularity contest, which is one of the reasons that abolishing it was brought up in the first place (and subsequently gained support consensus). The only way I see to handle this is to have better requirements and keep the consensus vote. jayden 00:34, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I feel like you contradicted yourself a little bit. From my perspective, having a consensus for the title is no different than a popularity contest - which is why I support removing the consensus. People have been supporting/opposing based on familiarity with the person (again, hence this discussion page....) rather than their credentials. If we remove the consensus, we eliminate the popularity contest, because the only required work would be in checking to make sure they meet the criteria. Kent Knifen (talk) 00:40, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to compromise on this provided that we have actual requirements in place that aren't complex and won't require un-necessary checking of a user. Glancing at their edit count and contributions, along with how long they have been around should be good enough. If I'm honest, my proposal at this point would be:
• Have a list of criteria that a user must meet (that isn't complex)
• If a user meets this criteria, a message can either be left on their talk page by the current holder of the Wikian book (User:Gaz Lloyd), or the user themselves can leave a message on Gaz' talk page requesting it. Provided the criteria is met, there is no reason to refuse.
• We will have criteria information, as long as what to do to request the title when this criteria is met, on RuneScape:The Wikian.
This eliminates the need for ANY kind of vote and ANY kind of nomination. It is simply - match this criteria, request the title. Does that sound better? jayden 00:49, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
That's....basically what I've been after this whole time, in a simpler way XD. 1. Have clear-cut criteria that are simple. 2. User makes their title request. 3. Admin/bureaucrat checks application, makes sure they meet it. 4. Coordinate time to get title. That entire google doc I linked was for step #1, and it basically boils down to "You need X out of Y of these, numbers A, B, C are requirements, you need to have either D, E, or F in addition to A/B/C." Kent Knifen (talk) 00:54, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
In which case, you need to rewrite your proposed criteria to be less complex. There shouldn't be an "A, B, C, then either D, E, F". You should write the criteria in a way that it all must be met, not any "if" or "else" jayden 01:06, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
The way I looked at it when creating the Google Doc, I saw some of the criteria as mandatory (such as not being banned...), and others were supplementary. You didn't need to meet every criteria, just the mandatory ones and 1-2 supplementary ones. Again, 100% open to modifying things if people think this is a good direction to go in and worth discussing. Kent Knifen (talk) 01:09, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
1. I'm still wondering what you meant with "people that did stuff on Discord got the Wikian"?
2. I believe Mod Shauny didn't want to revoke the title unless absolutely necessary, but perhaps they could make it possible/easier to do that, but that's messy and we should avoid that.
3. It's at the convience of both Gaz and the recipient of the title I thought?
4. Creating multiple wiki accounts is actually against the rules and I believe that is checked so people shouldn't be able to vote for themselves.
5. Personally, I checked the editor's contributions. I don't even know half the people that have the title currently and I've supported most of them.
00:10, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
1. I seem to recall there were people supporting wikian title nominations, citing the person being on the Discord as an example. However, I really don't feel like looking through every, single nomination and every, single, support on them to find it. I just seem to recall it from memory is all. 2. True, I was just thinking "software is there" (from CLF), and the Wikian community doesn't want the wrong people running around with the title. 3. If that's currently the case then I'm good with that. 4. That's good to hear, but what stops people from making multiple accounts on different networks (school, work, home, etc...), or changing their ip address for every new account? How do we differentiate between abusing multiple accounts, and RL friends/siblings providing support? 5. Well you're just different then :P I'm glad you don't vote based off familiarity. Kent Knifen (talk) 00:17, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
1. Probably was an additional thing rather than the whole reason why they were supported (I hope). But I understand, I'm not keen on looking through every nomination's support/comment/etc. either. 3. I've confirmed it with Gaz, and it is at both their convience (Gaz and the recipient). 4. That is a good question, hmm... 00:31, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
Comment about removing consensus - Actually, it really isn't a good idea as consensus is what the wiki runs by.
1. New Wikian title requirements. I think having it set to 3 months is quite too long. Perhaps the minimum of 1 month. Although personally I think two weeks would be fine. Finding 50 quality edit would be a chore imo. I'm iffy on showing interest on Wiki Community. I would love them to be active in the community, but if they don't want to, why force them? 50 quality edits seems attainable within 2 weeks. Not sure if how people view sister wikis, personally I think it would be great. These could be a good substitute to quality edit as they would also be involve in community. I do not agree with giveaways though. Seems like bribing. Neutral on blocked account.
2. Quality edit. I disagree that it shouldn't count if an admin removes an edit. They may not have met standards is all, but it shows they are willing to contribute. (unless it was spam)
3. Interest in Wiki community. I really don't care if they are involved in community or not, as long as they are a well behaved person, then it should be fine. Also should remove that they are in the Clan, but rather they should at least guest in the chat. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 00:26, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
1. Everything is flexible, and from what I'm seeing, people (surprisingly) want the requirement to be fewer than 50 "quality" edits. 2. Again, flexible, I had that clause in it to curb vandalism. 3. Interest in the community isn't actually a requirement, it's just an option for obtaining the non-mandatory requirements. If people have suggestions for additional criteria (mandatory and non-mandatory), I'm all ears. Kent Knifen (talk) 00:36, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Status Quo Urbancowgurl made a number of good points. And frankly, we knew going into this that there were going to be some issues regarding giving people the title. The first batch was intentionally done for people who were active at the time. All others were to be done on a case by case basis. Now is the 500 post count arbitrary? Yes. That was picked for a reason. Can we relax it for newer editors? yes. But that doesn't mean we give the title to someone who has edited their user page 300 times and then done 2 updates for a page for punctuation. Do we give the title to returning editors? Much the same way we treat newer editors, we can relax the requirements. The title is an optional reward for doing meaningful contributions to the wiki and helping give information to the RS player base given to us by the very friendly people at Jagex (who I might remind you CAN rescind the title on ALL accounts if they so choose). (a part of me was scared that infighting like this might happen over a silly little title.) --Deltaslug (talk) 23:56, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - There's a lot of things I object to in the proposal, many of which make it look more complicated to pass than RfA. Most importantly, as a bureaucrat, I have no interest in circumventing the community and filtering all nominations. Even if Gaz and I are significantly more active than traditional bureaucrats (or terrible bureaucrats if you ask Elune), forcing this to go through 2ish users is going to take way more time than you're anticipating and does not reflect the possibility of one or more of us becoming inactive.

As I explained to Jayden, the criteria is basically "numbers A, B, C are requirements, you need to have either D, E, or F in addition to A/B/C." I don't find that overly complex, but again - the idea is up in the air for discussion for a reason. If there's not enough bureaucrats around to make this effective, maybe we could have admins approve the requests, and/or bring in more bureaucrats? Kent Knifen (talk) 11:50, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps your interpretation of bureaucrats is different to mine, but to re-purpose and expand them just for the title isn't going to end well. Expectations change over time, but they don't change that much.
As for passing the role to admins, I fail to see the point again. What does making a select group of users, who have no more status or weight of opinion than any other user on the wiki, process all title nominations achieve? It circumvents the idea of consensus for no good reason. There have been plenty of poor decisions made regarding users going back over a decade - chances are one of us will unwittingly do it again.

Question - Is there any consensus about people that contribued for the wiki in other way than editing, especially those involved in cache/underground stuff (such as ( ͡☄ʖ ͡☄),Ethaksus and lequietriot (on 07), they invested some time in cache/api stuff yet I think they didnt edit directly but ended greatly contribute to the wiki. In my opinion, people like this should deserve the title regardless of their contribs on the wiki. 12:06, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Nominate them with an explanation and we'll find out :)

Oppose Proposal - What lol -- 15:28, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal - While well-intended, it scares me. The nominator being obliged to list fifty quality edits? A mandatory review by not even a sysop, but a bearcrat? Be active off-wiki? I thought we wanted to be open, welcoming and helpful - this sounds like a Stasi application form... 15:37, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate you making the effort to contribute to this discussion, but I just cannot support this proposal. I agree with what others have said about the proposed requirements being overly complex and too rigid, and I do not think that they match up with what the community are looking for in these requests (e.g. there has been no previous suggestion to increase to a 3 month requirement or require community interest; people were activity opposed to awarding the title based on creating software). I also think that the application process that you describe would completely undermine the consensus principle that the wiki is based upon. If the decision making process would involve some degree of judgement (which you say it would, for the decision maker would need to discount people known for “bad reasons” and consider the quality of 50 edits) then it should be something which all editors can comment on.

I disagree with you saying that people are taking stances based on personal opinions of candidates: its more that people have differing opinions on what the title requirements should be. The main sources of disagreement have been over whether returning editors should show some signs of recent editing (and that’s already been discussed extensively here) and about how much editing we want to see from new editors. If we can establish a consensus over these two things then I feel that the requests (which should continue in the current system) will go a lot smoother in future. To that end, I feel like having more people comment on how much activity they expect to see from newer editors would be helpful since there’s already been a couple of different edit count figures put out in this threads (50, 100-200, 500, 1000? Something else? Clearly there’s an expectation of something as a minimum, so we should make some definition of that). 16:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

RE: scheduled meetups - I appreciate the concern, but organisation to that level is hardly necessary. The majority of meetups are swiftly organised via in-game PM; a dedicated (monthly! geez) time is overkill. The very few occasions that a pre-organised time was needed was done via Discord PM (though my talk page is also fine).

In general agree with most of the opposes here, but I won't go over what has already been said. 17:05, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Can we resolve this? In my eyes, there's a consensus for disallowing an 'oppose' vote on a nomination for the so-called 'recency bias'. Sure, myself and a few others may disagree, but we're just going to keep getting proposals from people when really all we need is a simple line of text somewhere on RuneScape:The Wikian to state that you can't oppose for that reason (which is nothing that hasn't been done before). There is no dispute over the 2 weeks requirement for new users. And referring to Liquid's original post, I feel like the "What counts as significant?" question is down to a person's opinion and that's why we have the support/oppose comments on nominations in the first place. It is subjective, and we shouldn't write hard criteria for that. We need to stop going over old ground and just resolve this. It looks kinda shitty on us if we keep having disputes RE: this title - it doesn't help us look better to the people who complain that the title even exists and is "exclusive" to editors here. jayden 19:32, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal - per Isobel, and I think, to an extent, Jayden, the proposal outlined isn't really even remotely close to what we were trying to resolve with this thread. Solves a problem (and creates new ones) we don't have. Christine 00:46, April 28, 2017 (UTC)

Closed

• There is general consensus to remove the unwritten 'recent activity' requirement/bias on title nominations. While it was discussed on the original thread, a recency requirement was not and is not part of the approved guidelines.
• There is no consensus to change the two-week minimum account age for nomination. Equally, this was part of the original guidelines, not some longer unwritten time.

While commenters can justify their stance however they like, opposes based on (lack of) recent activity or (low) account age should be avoided, and considered very weak or invalid when determining consensus.

• There is no consensus on what constitutes a 'significant edit' or 'significant contributions'.
• There is no consensus to bulk-grant the title to entire usergroups at this time.
• This was mentioned in the original thread, but it is worth repeating: title removals should be done extremely sparingly - ideally never. However, this should not stop us from granting the title easily.
• There is no consensus to significantly change the nomination process at this time. Such discussions really should have their own thread at this point.
• Users are reminded to actually comment on the discussions. Discussions are active at the moment, but it would be nice to not have another thread in a few months when the buzz has died off.

01:56, April 28, 2017 (UTC)