Forum:Removing bureacrat hilite
Okay, I'm going to formally propose this now and just copy-paste what I wrote above.
I like the idea of removing crat hilites. The argument brought forward in Forum:Hilite custodians was that the 2 or so extra rights that custodians get isn't notable enough for a hilite, and I think the same logic could be applied here. Besides, crats barely edit anyway, so that weakens the argument that the hilite would be useful to show who you can go to for help, because you barely ever see them. I'm sure if a user wanted help from a crat, they could just go to RS:BR for their needs. They don't need to identify a crat. I don't see the hilite serving any real purpose, even if they were more active, due to them only having a couple of extra rights, and if a user needed assistance of those rights. they could just use RS:BR. The only reason I could think of a user needing to contact a crat would be for general discussion about something (doesn't need a hilite), or for disputing the closure of an rfa. However, in that scenario the crat would easily be identifiable due to them, well, signing. Based on the reasons above, I think we should remove the hilite for bureaucrats.
- I've given this a lot of thought, and I've made the decision to withdraw my support and change my stance to neutral. I am not going to withdraw this, as that would be unfair on the other supporters. Matt (t) 03:25, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that they show up infrequently was one my basis' for supporting. It's not like removing their hilite is hard. It's just deleting some code from the hilite. Matt (t) 00:39, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that they show up infrequently also makes this pointless... --LiquidTalk 00:44, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- No, not at all, since they do come up. Since I am not as active as I once was, I think I'll give myself a rainbow hilite since it won't be seen frequently anyways. ajr 01:09, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yea, you also seem to forget that almost everyone on this forum supports the notion of more active bureaucrats, and as such, those blue names would be appearing in the RC more often. ajr 01:12, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll reserve judgment until those names start showing up, then. (and about the rainbow colored name... I'm not suggesting that changing it to any other color is a good idea. My point is that it's not broken... why fix it?) --LiquidTalk 01:17, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that they show up infrequently also makes this pointless... --LiquidTalk 00:44, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Especially if we are going to open up the crat rights a lot more like Ajr suggested the section above, it is really pointless having the hilite. And if we are not opening it up more, it is still as pointless to have a hilite for them as it is for custodians to have one. Also, I agree with liquid that inactivity is not really important in having a hilite or not. Staff, helpers and VSTF show up very rarely, but their hilite is as useful as those for admins. That's because their rights are actually a lot different than admins's. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:53, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Your fundamental reason for removing the highlight, that is, that users don't have the need to identify, or contact bureacrats other than for "general discussion" is a bit idiotic. A quick glance through our bureacrat's talk pages show that the main reason a user leaves them a message is for discussion to do with user rights that should not be taken to RS:BR, e.g. poking one of them to respond to a request. Highlights are helpful to new users, as they can more easily identify the people to go to for help. The fact that bureacrats don't edit is completely irrelevant; you don't have to edit to respond to messages, which they themselves have already proven. It's much simpler and makes it more personal for someone to go directly to a person for help, instead of trying to post something on a community page and getting answers from god knows who.
Removing the highlight from one usergroup is stupid. If we must do it at all, we should remove them altogether, not make some half-assed job of it. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, and I wouldn't oppose it if it was proposed, but this is certainly the wrong way to go. I have no time for the "why fix what isn't broke" phrase, so I'll go with my preference, "better to be looking at it than looking for it". Ronan Talk 22:15, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Ronan, if going directly to crat talk pages instead of using BR is your preference, then that's fine, but I know that a lot of people think quite the contrary. I'd consider poking about requests more general discussion, and someone could easily use the list of crats on RS:ADMIN to find a crat. Your argument doesn't outweigh removing it in my opinion.
- What are you talking about? How is removing one usergroup that doesn't serve any real purpose when there are several others that do stupid? How is it the wrong way to go? I find "We have to remove all or none of the hilites" a completely ludacrious and misguided notion. Matt (t) 23:55, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Nono, of course people should, and do, use BR, but the point is they will very often stop by a bureacrat's talk page for a query or reminder to check it. That's not "general discussion", it's a conversation specifically relating to a bureacrat's responsibilities and abilities. As for using RS:ADMIN, if you've just joined up, the likelihood is you have no idea that page exists. Thus, you see the highlight in talk pages, archives etc., and can instantly recognise that user as a bureacrat, as opposed to having to find out randomly.
- You can make that argument for all highlighted usergroups. None of them serve any "real" purpose, they're there for identification purposes. By your logic, seeing as staff members do not actively edit here, their highlight should also be removed. Personally, I'd like to see them abolished altogether, but that's for a different thread. This particular one is just a bit pointless. Ronan Talk 07:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
- As I said with Hair, I'm not saying we should remove the hilite because they don't edit much. That was just a note I made. Matt (t) 07:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Flay, if people need to poke crats on their talk to get them to complete a crat request, the only way people can actually find a crat is by checking the list on RS:A or Special:ListUsers. Crats are currently so inactive they don't show up anywhere else. If you want to let it be easy to find a crat to poke him to complete a request, it is a LOT more effective to put a list of crats on the BR page than hiliting them. Also, even if crats would be active, a list on the page would be a lot more effective. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:17, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Why split this? - The point of the crat thread to discuss crats, their rights, the usergroup, their activity, how the community, and what we want from them. The hilite is completely relevant to that and I genuninely don't see why this had to be split. Matt (t) 22:49, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- It's an largely unrelated topic, which will have its own discussion. We don't want to have another Jagex wiki thread floating around, where we have to split it anyway due to its length. It's not a big deal. Ronan Talk 07:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Would you feel differently if Bureacrat's edit more frequently? It seems you are just ranting how the 3 active crats don't deserve a hilite wikiwide because they don't edit enough. The 'crats have their hilite for a reason and that is to identify the user. (Don't rant at me and say "Well, what about this!) Hair 23:05 UTC, 3,513 days ago
- Did you read past that part at all? I'm not saying they should be removed because they're inactive. I'm saying that the extra rights crats get does not warrant a hilite and if a user needed the assistance of those rights, there are much simpler and conveinient ways to get it instead of directly identifying a crat. Matt (t) 23:53, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Simpler ways? I think it is very simple to just glance at recent changes and go "Blue! *presses name*". I don't think it can get much simpler than that. And yes, I did read past that part. Hair 03:21, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Support - all they are is an admin with a few extra tools, no more than a checkuser which have no hilite, why do crats need one? removing it also loses the risk of it becoming a "status symbol" for future 'cratsWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 00:01, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - It isn't clear whether changing the color of the link to a administrator or bureaucrats page is indeed helpful. We don't have the click tracking data to know whether it helps at all. Dropping that issue to the side, removing the coloring to a bureaucrat will just be recolored to that of a sysop. 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.
If we must remove one user highlight at a time, so be it, but we need to make clear of the project pages that house the currently active administrators and bureaucrats. This also includes making the three request/help articles more clear to all users, not just new editors. In essence, I support the removal of the bureaucrat highlight and place them under the sysop highlight. Ryan PM 00:09, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see a need to or benefit in merging the crat/sysop highlight. I like the highlights conceptually (not because I have one) and can't relate to those who, at one point or another, assumed that they were status symbols, as many community-based websites I've used in the past have had a similar system.19:56, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Like Steler I see zero need and zero benefit from this. It's rather useful to be able to identify bureaucrats on the spot, and not everyone will know where to find a list. Don't fix what isn't broken comes to mind. Andrew talk 21:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Under what circumstances is it useful to find a 'crat through a blue hilite? So you can mark down in your notebook when one edits once a month? ajr 04:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose There is no reason to remove them. When I was a new wikian, I knew who to turn to by the color of their name, not by finding them by searching for admins/crats. Atlandy 21:33, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like a broken system just waiting to be fixed, then. ajr 04:54, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
- That is poor logic.Atlandy 22:34, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - What good does this do? I really don't see how this does anything. It is a simple way to id crats, which is often helpful for new people (not to mention lazy people). If it doesn't make anything better...why change it? HaloTalk 22:45, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but could you please give me one reason why exactly those new users would need to id crats? All requests go via RS:BR, so there's no need to id a crat for requests, right? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 17:35, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
Support - They still have an sysop hilite. I see no reason whatsoever that one would need specifically need a 'crat over a sysop. It was pointed out before (somewhere, don't wanna try and find it in this mess) that custodians have more useful rights (compared to a regular user) than 'crats (compared to a sysop), yet don't have a hilite (as per consensus). The way I see it, hilites seem fairly useless except for inexperienced editors to quickly find an experienced editor for help (though I see several flaws with this, particularly that most sysops don't use a hilite and even when used, it is never explained to users what hilites really mean). Hofmic Talk 07:08, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was on my post back on Forum:Bureaucrat discussion. Matt (t) 07:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - This is stupid, The fact that they have the Cyan hi-lite tells me that this guy can help out with virtually anything, even if that includes the addition of Rollback and Custodian. You're just taking something that isn't broken, something that needs absolutely no change, and breaking it.00:34, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing special about crats. All they can do extra is assign rights and close RFAs. That's all they have an extra hilite for. We don't have hilites for generally helpful users, do we? Matt (t) 00:39, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see refuting the proposal just because it isn't broken as a very strong argument. There is such thing as improving a system. Matt (t) 01:40, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Too many people here have an unhealthy obsession with something as trivial as a coloured username. This is nothing more than an ease of access feature, and editors here have said they benefited from it. It is completely optional, since any registered user can turn it off. Users who are hilited can also remove themselves from the list.
Supporters stated that hiliting custodians and adding a key were rejected by the community. This is misleading, if not dishonest. Both of these proposals were actually closed because consensus wasn't reached. There was not consensus to reject them. Per RS:CONSENSUS, the status quo prevails if there is no consensus. The supporters carry a heavy burden of proof, and their changes are not implemented if they fail to convince the community that they have met it. There was a point in time when there was rough consensus for bureaucrats to have hilites, and this will remain in place unless another consensus is reached.
This would do nothing to dispel the so-called "aura" surrounding bureaucrats. Wikipedia does not have user hilites, but the bureaucrat flag there is still considered a rare trophy (a delusion that we seem to be trying to dispel).
Some have said that bureaucrats infrequently show up in the recent changes. While I don't see how that implies they shouldn't have a unique hilite, it should be pointed out that the hilite is not unique to Special:Recentchanges. It also appears in page histories and on talk pages like this one. So it does show up more frequently than you think.
Overall, this would reduce the functionality of a potentially useful feature with no visible benefits. Dtm142 07:02, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Could someone please explain to me how being able to quickly identify a crat could be possibly be helpful in anyway? The only reason I have seen been some-what given is that sometimes crats are poked if BR isn't checked for a few days. The only extra things the Crats can actively apply without being pre-defined (ie., closing RFA's) is assigning user rights. Does the ability to change users' usergroups really warrant a hilite when there is a set page where users can go to request this? Matt (t) 07:25, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
- If I ever see a 'Crat with an edit in the recent changes and I need to ask him to look at something or consider someone for Rollback or Custodian, I'm going to ask them on their talk pages since it's clear that they are, or just have been online, so I'm likely to get a quicker response. What is SO problematic about a blue color on a name, that we need to go through a massively bureaucratic process to break something that isn't broken? You're making the 'crats harder to identify, I see absolutely no reason to have much ado about nothing. Dtm has said it clearly: "Overall, this would reduce the functionality of a potentially useful feature with no visible benefits.".
- My bottom line is, we are gaining NOTHING by doing this, and we are potentially taking away something useful. Why break something that isn't broken? 09:22, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - The supporters have yet to show what the benefit of doing this would be.04:04, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - I have no problems with 'crats having their hilite, I'm just here to comment on some of the more "poor" arguments against this proposal. I've read that it was "stupid" to remove the highlight from a single usergroup and not the others. I'm not sure about the logic behind that, as I can't seem to find a reason for its stupidity from the opposer, nor from his fellow opposers. I have to agree with Ajr that there is barely any reason why a user would need to identify a bureaucrat, marking them down for editing seems to be the only one. Atlandy brings up a point, but a rather obsolete point. Perhaps in those days, bureaucrats were more active, and there was a distinct benefit from contacting them than other users. Today, on the other hand, if you wanted a bureaucrat to solve an issue, it is possibly more likely the issue would have been resolved before any 'crat even edited! Another user claimed some supporters were misleading others because they claimed that 'crats should have their highlights removed because custodians didn't have one. What the supporters did use the custodian argument for was to highlight the fact that custodians did not have a highlight, despite the fact they had a far larger array of tools at their disposal compared to normal users than bureaucrats compared to administrators. Finally, the process of moving some lines from hilite.css is supposedly a "massively bureaucratic process", that is an massive exaggeration if I ever saw one. I think the process of closing this thread is more complex than implementing it.
I'm sure that some users will think that I'm actually a supporter of removing highlights from bureaucrats, so I must reiterate that I am mostly indifferent to this idea, however, I do disagree with the merits of some arguments against this proposal, and that is why I commented. 222 talk 04:51, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I have never really understood the meaning behind making a change upon the wiki that will not improve it, and especially when it is not creating a problem. The question I have is really, why do you care if a bureaucrat has a hilight? Is it really that off-putting to you?
"they could just use RS:BR"
That really makes no sense, you could also say then that if a normal user needed an administrative task done, they could simple go to RS:AR and put it there. So why do we also need Sysop hilights? It would make more sense to me to remove all hilights than to just remove one. 06:09, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - If you want to remove all hilites, that's a different story. However, this proposal has no rhyme or reason and would have so little effect that it seems like a petty way to "punish" the bureaucrats for perceived shortcomings. None of the arguments presented in support of this are at all persuasive. ʞooɔ 06:34, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, can we just remove all hilites? I wouldn't mind *whistles*. Hofmic Talk 07:00, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Neither would I...Still, while only one of the last 10 most recent sysops use the hilite and only about 5-10% of total sysop edits in RecentChanges are green, this is the kind of proposal that could easily be shot down by an influx of older (hilited) sysops opposing it. See Forum:Ban Name Highlights and Forum:Crowns and AEAE for previous discussion. ʞooɔ 08:00, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - What's the point? Telos 09:03, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see much point in it. I still think that hilites are a useful tool for identifying users with specific rights with in the recent changes and page histories. --Aburnett (Talk) 22:24, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Absolutely not. Just because bureaucrats don't edit much, doesnt mean we should just get rid of their hilite that shows recognition. They have that hilite for a reason. Bots have a hilite for a reason. Pages that don't exist have a hilite for a reason. It just helps so much with recognition. Haidro 21:29, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
- You realize that the thread is not about removing the 'crats' hilites in entirety, just their unique blue one. They'd still have the sysop green hilite (if they really want a hilite). The main supporting point being that the blue hilite is useless; there's no reason for a user to need a 'crat. Hofmic Talk 01:09, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Weak support - Special:Listusers with the bureaucrat group selected does the job. Flipside: not all users know about Special:Listusers (that's why my support is weak). As has been said already in this thread, bureaucrats are only needed when a user right needs to be granted or revoked, and RuneScape:Bureaucrat requests also does this. Finally, when a user right is needed and a sysop is messaged, the sysop can send the user to Special:Listusers or a specific active bureaucrat.
00:21, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
- We have active bureaucrats? Hofmic Talk 07:05, January 5, 2012 (UTC)