Forum:Remove name highlights

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Remove name highlights
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 December 2012 by TyA.
Related threads: Forum:Custodian crown, Forum:Removing bureacrat hilite, Forum:Hilite Bots, Forum:Remove usergroup hilites, Forum:Hilite custodians, Forum:Unhilite VSTF and staff, Forum:Hilites, Forum:Crowns and AEAE, Forum:User hilite legend

Hello! I am proposing we remove the username highlights found on [[MediaWiki:Wikia.css/hilite]]. I would suggest removing all of them, but I'm open to keeping the bot colors if anyone feels strongly about it. Reasoning follows:

  • Highlights are used so sporadically by our admins that they no longer have any meaning to people who aren't overly involved with the wiki. Of the active admins listed at RS:A, only four of the sixteen have a green name, and only one or two of them are particularly active in the sense that their names show up on Recent Changes regularly. I haven't looked at the actual numbers, but if I were to venture a guess I'd say that 85-90% of the edits done by admins are done by those without highlights. Since Aburnett's RfA in April of 2010, there have been 17 RfAs -- only one of those admins has chosen to use the green name. Since it appears the highlights have been kept over the years mainly because we thought it would be easier for the noobs to see, that argument is completely refuted by the fact that very few of the admins even use it. Right now to them it's just someone with a green name that doesn't really have a reason. In fact, a couple weeks ago someone asked me why Ciphrius's username was green. He didn't make the connection that he had it because he was an admin. After all, why would he? It might make sense to keep them if everyone had them, but that ain't the case anymore.
  • Since the user profile changes by Wikia some time in early 2011, all admins have had a big ugly "ADMIN" sign on the top of their user pages and talk pages and contributions. Since apparently we're not allowed to remove that, isn't it a better way to identify admins than an unexplained green link? We also have a link to RuneScape:Contact us on the navigation, and there's RS:AR, [[Special:Chat]], IRC...things have changed since we added the highlights.
  • I haven't seen any evidence that new users or anons are more likely to contact someone with a name highlight. Of course this is mostly based on Ciph's talk page since he's the main active green dude, but if the highlights actually had any effect I think we would have seen it by now.
  • If you really want to keep personal can! Just use your personal CSS.

This would also apply to bureaucrats, since after sysops were given the ability to add the rollback and custodian rights, the only things bureaucrats do are closing RfAs and bot requests, both of which are thread-based and easy to find the closer anyway. They're also much less common in Recent Changes, although it is a nice little surprise to see a glimmer of blue there once in a while. There's nothing I have specifically against keeping the bureaucrat highlight; it just seems unnecessary if we're also removing the sysop one.

It would probably also apply to staff, but for a different reason -- the staff list is updated sometimes almost daily, and it's a fruitless labor to keep updating it. If someone really wants to keep them up there I wouldn't mind too much.

Argument refutations because I have nothing better to do

  • "They can be helpful to new users, like they were to me."
Sure they were! But you probably signed up a long time ago back when 90% of our admins used the highlights. Now it's 90% who don't. Now they just cause confusion to new people, the exact opposite of the purpose they were meant to serve. Now you can join the chat and see 4 admins (or at least chat mods) to help you immediately. If you're not the chatting type, you can always look at a user's masthead or click the contact button. could wait for Ciph to come out of his hole every night. Your choice.
  • "Don't fix what isn't broken. There is nothing wrong with leaving them."
Well...okay. In a technical sense, there's nothing wrong with leaving them. Still, they're no longer remotely functional, and the system doesn't work. I don't think it'a stretch to say that at this point, they provide more harm than good.
  • Highlights are not a status symbol! That's not what AEAE/USP means.
Absolutely right! Notice how, unlike most of the threads I linked above, I don't mention equal treatment at all (except right here). I don't think the name highlights are often taken as a status symbol, and I don't really care if they are or not. The problem is that they don't work anymore, not that they're offensive to anybody. (Sidenote: isn't it great that nobody worries about AEAE anymore?)
  • "...Hilites are a useful tool for identifying users with specific page histories."
Hmm, I guess you've got me there. It could be slightly useful in certain situations to easily see which edits were made in the early days by admins, and which were not. Not all that useful and probably not worth considering, but the best argument in favor of name highlights that makes any sense now.

Okay, that's it! Go forth and vote. If anyone has better arguments in favor of keeping the highlights that I didn't cover, please bring them up. I'm also hoping that the silent contingent of inactive sysops won't rear their heads and make their first edits of the year opposing a thread that very slightly concerns them. ʞooɔ 04:41, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


Strong support - Just for the record, I opposed removing highlights on the last thread (the first quote Cook pulls up is mine I think). I thought they could be useful to people looking for an admin in the RC or Wikia Activity. Since then I have come to the realization that they are NOT HELPFUL AT ALL IN ANY WAY. Never have I seen a user ask an admin for help after seeing their highlighted name in the RC. At this point in our wiki's life, this is a stupid feature to still have, we are so past this. The few users who still have it aren't even active on the wiki, making it essentially useless for its supposed purpose. -.- Let's get rid of the highlights and move on with editing. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:42, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Also I support removing bureaucrat, staff and bot highlights. All are useless. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:26, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Just because I feel like this stance will stir up the most trouble. Ha ha ha! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:45, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Psycho why must you torment me D: ʞooɔ 04:46, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Hold on! I actually have a less stupid reason for opposing: to keep degen from getting his way. God dammit I hate that guy. I am not going to stand idly by while degen goes unspited. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:49, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Well, we could pass the thread but then, like, lock him in a boiler room or something. That would make it even maybe. ʞooɔ 04:50, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Strong support - if everyone is unhilted except degen. Otherwise, my stance remains strong oppose. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:51, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Unhilted? Is that a euphemism? ʞooɔ 04:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was on purpose cook. Thank you for ruining it by explaining it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:00, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so that's my fault too? I don't need your shenanigans. ʞooɔ 05:06, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
So you would add my hilte back? Would it hurt?--Degenret01 (talk) 05:50, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. We'll add one on you, WITH LASERS. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:02, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. If not physically then at least emotionally. I imagine you sitting in a dank smelly cave, with no light but your glowing name. Your face cast in a lime green tint, your curse my name until your voice is hoarse. Then you go to bed on your boulder, using a smaller boulder as a pillow. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:42, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Why would I give any reasons? ʞooɔ 04:47, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support but - I still think bot edits should be highlighted. Hair 04:58, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support removal of all highlights - We barely see bots in RC (default), so why must they get a highlight? HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 05:23, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support, except bots - It's useful to see bot edits in page histories and Recent Changes when I have show bot enabled. 222 talk 05:45, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - It isn't clear whether changing the color of the link to a specific users' page is indeed helpful. We don't have the click tracking data to know whether it helps at all. We have opposed the idea of a highlight key in RecentChanges, so this also begs the question of how useful highlighting a specific user name is. I don't support user highlights at all and would love to see them gone. Not even staff and bots need to be differentiated now with the UserPagesV3 (the masthead group tag/title). Ryan PM 06:56, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Kill the highlights. Kill them with fire. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:05, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support, neutral bots - To address each in turn:

  • Staff and helper hilites are generally out of date, and most of us are aware of the ones that might be seen on the wiki messing with whatever ToU breaking scripts we may have.
  • Crat hilites, I'm not particularly bothered by. Of the four active crats, none of them are active enough for anyone to go asking questions of them and the bot flag may be assigned by admins soon enough anyway.
  • Admin hilites are fragmented as pointed out above, it makes sense to remove them all.
  • Bots, and AWB, I'd rather keep just so when we're viewing RecentChanges with bots showing it's remarkably easy to notice which is a bot and which is not. Having said that, every automated edit is made by an account with bot in their username (except my own), and they are all flagged with a little b in RecentChanges as well. Not to mention the generally repetitive edit summary. Seeing as it's consistently used, I don't see the problem with it, but its not something I'll cry over if it goes.

cqm 12:12, 6 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support, but neutral on bots - Per above. For bots, I think it will still be useful to check the bot edits from page history. Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 12:36, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Woo, we're doing this again. Especially with the wiki chat existing now, I don't think there's any need for these things at all. Admins are marked in the chat, so if anyone needs their help, they can know who to poke in the chat. The other methods of contacting an admin have just become obsolete. Contacting someone on their talk page just because they have a hilite usually doesn't get you the answer. For example, if people would ask a random admin about how to make the infobox do this or that will usually not work. You'd have to get to someone with experience with wikicode then. Those people are not all admins, so there the highlight is pointless too. I am neutral on keeping bot highlights, just so you can identify them as automated edits. Maybe those highlights could be changed to something like grey or something other than yellow and purple though. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:59, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - If the vast majority don't use them, there's no point in having them. They should probably be left for bots, but that's not a huge issue. I don't think we necessarily need to remove all the helper/staff/bureaucrat ones. But sysop ones should definitely go and I won't care about the others. HaloTalk 16:07, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Though I'm fine with bots keeping theirs. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:32, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Except for bots and staff. Hard luck Hairr. Ronan Talk 18:57, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

rUApu.gif JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:26, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - but I do have a conflict of interest. I refused the highlight precisely because of AEAE: it would give a different sense to my edits, one of authority, which I didn't want. Don't you go waving "no one cares about AEAE" around, Cook! Apart from that, yeah. I don't see the point. Except for bots, where having a history full of bots on a page can be helpful to see at a glance, like when we were gathering a list of pages in the Beta (120) namespace that weren't edited by humans.

 a proofreader ▸ 

19:04, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion a conflict of interest is a good thing. It means you have an interest. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:07, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Who will supply the conflict Ronan Talk 19:22, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
I'll edit-conflict the next editor. That will be the conflict.  a proofreader ▸  19:24, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support removal of non-bot hilites - +1 for saying "ain't" MolMan 19:39, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - As one of the highlighted sysops, I've opposed these threads in the past because the highlight still had practical use the last time an analogous thread came up for discussion. However, I think right now it's only Ciphrius who has a highlight and is active. Therefore, having one administrator with a green name is much more likely to cause confusion than any help. I should note that personally, I find highlights to be useful, so my personal CSS will be updated. But, on a global scale, the highlight for sysops has outlived its usefulness.

As an extension, there is no need to keep one for bureaucrats. However, I am a bit ambivalent about removing the bot highlight. Personally I found it to be useful to see bot edits in page histories in a different color, but I'm not sure what others think. Bots will remain orange in my personal CSS anyway.

Finally, I'd like to address the AEAE point. Highlights are not a violation of AEAE. If this thread was proposing removing highlights because of AEAE, then I'd be strongly opposing it. A highlighted name or the lack thereof does not affect the weight of a user's opinion in any way when the consensus is determined. I find the notion that some people get more attention when a thread is closed solely due to the color of their names to be ludicrous. It may very well be the case that highlighted names do (or rather, did, when more green sysops were around) got more weight, but that was solely based on the strengths of their arguments.

But, because this thread addresses the declining practicality of the highlights, I would support removing every highlight except bot/AWB on this basis only. I would be neutral on the removal of bot/AWB highlights. --LiquidTalk 23:45, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it we really should get rid of that very ugly "ADMIN" sign next to every administrator's name. It's stupid, unsightly, and pointless. --LiquidTalk 23:46, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
That'll probably be called a violation of ToU or some other pissy excuse. 222 talk 23:50, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
I'm stupid, unsightly, and pointless. MolMan 23:52, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Screenshotted. Thank you, fairy princess. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 00:37, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had seen some wikis that replace the masthead names with something relevant to their wiki? Also, the AEAE arguments had absolutely nothing to do with opinion weighting... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:50, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
The names can be changed by editing a mediawiki message. Besides, AEAE doesn't exist anymore since we changed it to SAOW because we've all agreed we're not equal, just our opinions are. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:02, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support BUT - Bots/AWB. Bots can keep their color as we can see who is a REAL bot and who just have "bot" in their name. For example, Camdroid is an AWB bot but can be thought that it is just a normal person. Sysops and Bcrat can go, since they are not really diff (like a bot). Thank you, — Jr Mime (talk) 00:52, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I couldn't find any guidelines for naming of bots either here or on the linked wikipedia page on RS:BOT. The naming convention seems just to be status quo. URL is the only other bot without the naming convention on the wiki (globally-flagged rather than locally), so perhaps this isn't a huge issue, but the highlights do help with it. cqm 11:07, 9 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose - it feeds my ego and for old time's sake. Support - Cook took the liberty of having a friend link me to this discussion for obvious reasons. If it isn't used by everyone, it kinda defeats the purpose. Andrew talk 04:24, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Whatever... - Seriously, who cares? Either have all sysops, crates, bots etc. use highlights or delete them. It's just a colour, seriously. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 10:20, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Why'd you'd only bring up crates but not boxes? MolMan 15:48, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Bureauboxes. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:10, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support but the bots should keep their colors. 5-x Talk 11:41, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Das ist the point. We're deleting them. ʞooɔ 17:56, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

oppose why are you removing my admin powers --Iiii I I I 16:57, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Because we're sick of you and your anti-Jewish regime MolMan 16:59, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

support For the sole reason that they're barely used any more, so what's the point of having only 25% of active admins using the hilite. Dragon 2h sword old.pngCallofduty4 Talk 00:07, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on Admins, Bureaucrats, Strong Oppose for bots and AWB - While I don't really care one way or the other on admins, IMHO bots/AWBs need to be marked. Not every bot and AWB account has a name that makes it bottiness clear, and it's important to realize that something is happening automatically, and that if necessary a bot can be blocked or its owner contacted. Michagogo (talk) 14:31, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - All hilites except for bot/awb shall be killed, with fire. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:32, December 13, 2012 (UTC)