Forum:The Wikian

Forums: Yew Grove > The Wikian

BIG NEWS

As Shauny revealed in the patch notes teaser today, we're soon getting an in-game title - [Name] the Wikian. The main thing this thread wants to determine is who we want to give it to - or rather how we decide who.

• Level of contribution to 'qualify'
  • Literally none
  • Minimal - 10 edits as a token contribution?
  • Casual editors with 100s of edits?
  • Dedicated editors with 1000s of edits?
  • Very dedicated editors with 10s of 1000s of edits?
  • Admins only?
• Method:
  • Just ask
  • Simple recommendation
  • Short UotM-style Y/N vote
  • More intense RfA style

I also have a list of names I can propose upfront - there's a lot, so I won't put it here unless it is really wanted.

Other info:

• The title is unlimited - it is permanently added to your account (like most titles) and can be given away to as many people as we like
• The title is added through me via a special item (like everything I do, should the community decide so (or if I go inactive), I shall pass it on - probably by talking to Shauny)
• The recipient has to be online to receive the title - shouldn't be an issue, I can work around timezone issues for the most part
• There'll be a forum and reddit post on the day of the update talking about why they're doing this in more detail

More info

Two Mondays ago (14 Nov), Shauny chatted to me via a few places (discord, in-game, and twitter) about getting something for us in-game, a la the Wiki Cap in Team Fortress 2. He managed to get a title - more visible and doesn't clash with fashionscape as much ;)

The title is given out by a specific user (surprise! Its me) using a special item (a book I think) which is only obtainable via a Jagex mod adding it to your account manually. You click the book, enter the user's name into the prompt, confirm the name you typed in (a yes/no prompt), and they get the title (they don't need to accept anything). The recipient has to be online at the time.

Shauny last told me that the expected release date was the update of 5 December.

Discussion

I'm pretty excited about this, even if Shauny did the reveal earlier than I expected ;)

I'm feeling a short UotM style would be better, with minimal other requirement - really, anyone that has done something notable for the wiki that people can agree 'deserves' the title. Doesn't need to be intense, but at least a few people should agree that the nominated user can have it (again, similar to TF2's cap). Obviously wearing the title makes you somewhat of a representative, so you we don't want people being a dick with it (I'd really rather not have to pursue getting it removed from someone).  @Gaz#7521 22:55, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I'm swaying away from a formal process and more just ask for it, but IDK.  @Gaz#7521 00:33, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys,

So first of all I believe there was a title planned from a meeting a while ago when you had a talk with Jagex, but this was something I feel so honoured to do for you wonderful people.

It's not much in the terms of things, but consider this a thank you from us for everything you guys have done for 10+ years. <3

Hope you enjoy Shaunypwns (talk) 23:13, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

I am proxying for Mol — Xcgurl08 (talk) 23:23, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

“	I deserve the title. I have >160,000 (the second most of any human account) and still log on n game every once in a while. I revolutionized countless templates and spearheaded the switch from wikicode to Lua. Even after my ban-turned-voluntary-exit, I continue to provide advice and help that improves the wiki. While not the most popular or liked, I am still without a question, one of the most prolific editors, both by subjective opinion of my peers and by objective measure of my contributions. I only communicate with my small circle of friends when I am actually online. So tainting the reputation of the wiki and its community is not a real worry. Let's not forget that I was indeed the original proposer of this idea, albeit in jest. I am no stranger to Shauny either, who has gone ahead and decided to make this a thing. I may have all but quit, but I would love to accept this post"humous" accolade.	”
	— MolMan

Wow - That's freaking badass that is. I know, in a geek way, but that's what we wikians are. I hope we set it up so both editors and those who contribute ingame (event team ftw) get it. Degenret01 (talk) 23:39, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Mol - no doubt he has editing prowess, but I think there's people with less controversial wiki/in-game behavior who are deserving of the title than him. – Ozank Cx 23:49, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about specific users.  @Gaz#7521 00:08, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Awesome - First of all thank you Mod Shauny! Second, I agree with Gaz of how it could be given. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 23:51, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

Question - Is there a limit tae the number of titles available? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 23:53, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

No limit.  @Gaz#7521 00:08, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Just give it to everyone on Gaz's list - Arbitrary editcount requirements do not necessarily reflect how long someone has been contributing, or the quality of their edits. A UoTM/RFA style thing is arguably too much fuss for what is just a cosmetic title, and could have issues with abuse/lack of involvement. I don't think there really needs to be any criteria for who gets it beyond "makes contributions to the wiki/community on a regular basis", and the list Gaz mentioned probably covers all people fitting that. If anyone is missed or becomes deserving of it in future, they can simply ask for it. Wahisietel (Talk) 23:56, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

Its currently only 25 users - I've definitely missed some.  @Gaz#7521 00:08, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

When you said it was too long a list to be posted, I imagined more than 25 names. That's not too long to be posted, imo, especially if you use col-2 or col-3 for it. AnselaJonla 18:21, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - Some suggestions from discord include giving it to literally anyone who asks for it via a wiki edit, or having some low requirement like 10-50 (constructive) mainspace edits. Thoughts?  @Gaz#7521 00:08, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Well this is freaking awesome. Thanks Shauny! I agree with Wahi as well - anyone who is making contributions seems like a perfectly good criteria for giving the title. Amascut ^{Ia Morte} 00:21, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Wahisietel too. Regular contributors. Samberen 00:36, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Titles should hold a certain amount of prestige. Titles that hold no prestige are never used because they're common/not cool/etc. Although editing a wiki shouldn't be seen as an achievement or anything like that, I feel like opening the floodgates for every noob to have a wiki title will just devalue this kind gesture. Not to mention that it has to be put on an account manually each time. There should be some sort of threshold. UoTM seems like a good idea. I don't think there'd be an issue with attendance on it. If someone applied that clearly wouldn't "deserve" it, the masses would speak out. Also, common sense would apply in any case.

I would say, thousand(s) of edits at least and passing a UoTM would be the absolute minimum. Also, Gaz made me comment. ): User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:53, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

UoTM isn't fool-proof since it's been shut down for over 3 years at this point so at least half the old ones are likely inactive+there'd be some users who represent the wiki well but never obtained UoTM before then, like poor Onei. plus hallowland was UoTM at one point so it's definitely not fool proof  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 01:37, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

What, what? Are you implying that my comment meant that users who achieved UoTM should get it? If so, that wasn't what I meant at all, lol. I meant a UoTM-style voting system like what Gaz and Iiiiiii suggested. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:48, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

I was elected to lead not to read. I remembered gaz's thing right after posting but at that point it was too late.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 23:28, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with the 'ask and you shall receive' Maybe having an account on Wiki made before 2017 making it limited? CambraWiki (talk) 00:59, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Okay this is Fyre this time. I definitely don't agree that it should be an 'ask and you shall receive' policy. This should be a prestigious title that should be earned. If it were an ask and you shall receive, then literally anyone could get the title. Every player could get the title. What would be the point in this? Then the title would be completely meaningless. Xcgurl08 (talk) 01:05, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - how about to make a kinda compromise between the prestigious and the give it to everyone, welet those who are able to qualify for rollback or have an established presence in the clan, mostly at Gaz's discretion, be eligible for the title? User:TyA/sig 01:11, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

For those who aren't in the know, rollback requirements is 200 edits "that are not in the User: or User talk: namespaces, and are not edits to RuneScape:Sandbox." and an account age of 30 days. User:TyA/sig 01:16, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Rollback-esque requirements works for me.  @Gaz#7521 15:52, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I think the title should be earned, but I dinnae think demanding thousands of edits is necessary. I ken of a wikian, edits about 20 times a month and has 2200 edits in 3 years, fa'd make a guid choice fer the title. There should be some limit, else we'd have people just editing once tae get the title, and there'd likely be those fa'd vandalise and then try and claim the title. I believe summat UOTM-esque should be the minimum requirement (which I'd count being eligible fer rollback tae be) Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 01:18, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Since the title give out is a manual process, if they vandalise they would not get it. User:TyA/sig 01:19, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I can't say much as to what qualifies for the title, but someone who simply makes a half-hearted edit or two simply to get it can't really be considered a true Wikian. Right? Good luck! Neutralino_Talk? 02:15, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I want one. But other than that, give 'em out to whoever wants one. If not, my second choice would be an arbitrary edit requirement like 100. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:40, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I would say more posts and better quality of posts than User:Deltaslug as a minimum requirement. A secondary requirement being that the user is CURRENTLY active on the Wiki. There are many editors who haven't been active for years and while they've contributed greatly to the wikia, to continue to contribute while such a title/reward is available would only seem fair. Though I think we could make some allowances for users like Mol Man. --Deltaslug (talk) 02:59, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Plus, what would we do if the user name we use on Wikia isn't the username we use most often in RS?

rip my title I guess :'''''''( Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:02, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

A lot of users have differing names, which is fine. I'll confirm with the recipient users what their in-game names are.  @Gaz#7521 15:52, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Based on the criteria above, I'd say Casual-Dedicated Poster with a simple nomination style, but up to the Admins if a user has done enough to warrant it. Some means should be avail for a wikian to determine which of their accounts the title goes to though. --Deltaslug (talk) 03:20, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

With caveats that the posts should be more than just deleting and adding a character 500 times (ie: changing "THE" to "THEM" and back to "THE"). Major contributions to existing projects, creating/updating numerous relevant pages/articles, or even taking the lead on stalled projects should allow a Wikian to move up and give a RS Wikia Admin justification to nominate them sooner. --Deltaslug (talk) 03:23, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

We are the RuneScape Wiki, not the RuneScape Wikia :\ --Iiii I I I 05:18, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

We are the Runescape fandom, not the runescape wiki :\ -- Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 15:20, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I would prefer relatively high requirements for the title – we should not be handing it out to every last person with an account on the wiki. Something similar to a UotM vote with UotM criteria: an account older than three months with at least 1000 mainspace edits, plus a minimum of 50 edits to be eligible to vote. How will the process of revoking the title work? --Iiii I I I 05:15, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

I think that if we have edit requirements, they should be ignorable in some cases. Users that do big things with a few edits, or provide a lot of extra stuff via chat/etc without directly editing, and so on.

I haven't talked to Shauny about removing a title, but I would assume it is a manual process done by a jmod. As such, I would really rather avoid doing it, as it would be drama for everyone involved.  @Gaz#7521 15:52, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't been editing the Wiki for long so I don't really feel my opinions make that much of a difference in the long run. However, while the talk of a "minimum edits" requirement sounds good in theory, I think the better way to determine eligibility is a quality of edits rather than quantity. For example: someone who takes the time to create a single new, relevant, page; probably deserves the title more than someone who has made 100 "minor" edits such as simple grammer/spelling correction (not that this isn't also important). Suaraun (talk) 08:14, November 26, 2016 (UTC) Suaraun (talk) 08:16, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Shauny for giving this opportunity <3 I think the title could be really good for raising our profile in the Runescape community - right now no one knows who our regular editors are. I'd like to see it used for a purpose - I'm thinking it would be useful for identifying people who are able and willing to provide others with help with editing. For that aim I think it should be something that has some kind of requirement - I agree that opening it up with minimal/no requirements is going to make the title pretty meaningless. If it was available with minimal requirements that would probably also be problematic, as was found with the achievements system, with people making low quality edits to obtain the title. The requirement should be something like having however many mainspace edits for rollback/custodian as a minimum, to ensure the people with the title are knowledgeable enough about editing to provide help to newbies. A UoTM-ish request process would also be good, if we want to veto people for concerns about their suitability to represent the wiki, lack of knowledge, inactivity or whatever. IsobelJ 10:51, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Also some level of advertisement/encouragement of editing, as I believe the title appears in the interface when not unlocked with a message along the lines of "given to valuable contributors of the RuneScape Wiki" (may have changed since I have seen it, though).  @Gaz#7521 15:52, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There should be some requirements definitely, otherwise the gesture is pretty pointless. Probably 1000ish edits to mainspace to make sure that every current (and past) active contributor is eligible, and the noobs who just want the title but haven't ever done anything here are filtered out. Fswe1 14:29, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment- Agree with Fswe. Or, what if we do some monthly/bi-monthly competition which involves people doing as many constructive edits as they can in a week (let's say), and if you do 350 edits in the week (50*7), you get the title.

However, we are all forgetting the fact that this is something obtained in-game, so it's useless for users on the wiki who don't play the game anymore. If we were to give it to certain user groups, make sure they're actual players of the game. Haidro ^(talk) 14:45, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Huh. This is really interesting, actually. =o I'm all for it, but I disagree with any sort of competition for it (like Haidro suggested). it needs to be earned, not won. Plus, competitions on a wiki are...usually pretty pointless, since they promote pointless edits just for the sake of editcount. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 18:13, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

No one would actually 'win' though. If you get 350 edits then you earn it. Haidro ^(talk) 01:47, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - This is a good idea, and great for wiki recognition. I don't think it should go to just anyone though. Rollback eligibility *and* current activity (with a cutoff of a month?) should be the boundaries for the title. And, also, not being currently blocked from editing, either by admins of this wiki or by wikia themselves (sorry, Mol). AnselaJonla 18:21, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reqs - After thinking about it for a day I would like to see the req be around 400-500 mainspace edits (Gaz could alter this in circumstances of special projects or something that he would know took a lot more time, at his discretion), accounts should be at least 90 days old - the title isn't going away, he can hand it out later if they stick, and for event team people maybe 60 days active with 5 events hosted? Is 5 too few? W/e, it's a starting point. Degenret01 (talk) 20:25, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Could be Mainspace/Filespace due to them being the forefront of the Wikia. Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 04:12, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is a pretty cool thing that Shauny took time to do for us, least we can do is accept it :3 Corn Colonel (talk)

Not a comment - This is really cool... Back in my day, Jagex was never so open to us at all (as far as I know). Anyway, I'd say use a similar system as the TF2Wiki cap, as has been suggested above. Just a short request page with a really short discussion should be enough. People who just edited 10 times and want the title won't be accepted then, but people who actually contribute regularly will get the title easily then. That way the title will also be a bit more prestigious. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 14:57, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Qwesthun - What about people with multiple accounts? Can they request the title for each of those accounts, or just for one? I'm already imagining an army of alternate accounts of a single person running around, all with the [The Wikian] title. But then again, if someone has two accounts they actively use (like a main and a pure, or iron man, etc), I'd think it's more than reasonable to give both accounts the title. I'd suggest at most 3 RS accounts with the title per wiki-editor. That leaves room for pures, but prevents an army of Wikians from forming by a single person. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 14:57, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Comment/idea - I realize it would be more work for both Shauny (assuming he is the one implementing the title) as well as whoever is adding it to accounts. But, what about some sort of tiered title similar to FB/IFB? Different colors for different levels of contribution to the wiki. For example, at 100 edits you get a green title, at 500 a yellow title, and 1000+ a red title. Or possible a slightly different title depending on the same. "The Wikian" at 100, "The Real Wikian" at 500, "The True Wikian" at 1000+. Thoughts? Suaraun (talk) 17:35, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

According tae Mod Jack, it can be rather costly tae produce titles[1], and I'm thinking they were just intending summat small. They have done summat similar tae fit ye've suggested in the past, but it may depend on stuff like how common the title is. Think we'd need Shauny tae comment on how they wish tae play the title frae their end Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 19:20, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the title should represent someone who has a significant contribution to the wiki and/or it's associated communities. It should also be awarded to people who embody the wiki's values. In essence: "This person has unquestionably made the RuneScape Wiki a better community or resource". With this in mind, I propose the following criteria:

1. A minimum edit requirement of 500 non-userspace edits or file uploads. This shall include talk page edits, as it signifies an involvement in the community. As with the vast majority of processes on the wiki, this can be overlooked if there is a compelling case, such as a member of the events team or clan chat admin who does not have a notable presence on the wiki.
2. A UOTM-style process will be used to assess the quality of the user. If someone has consistently added nonsense, got into edit wars or uploaded images that are generally speedy deleted, then they should be filtered out at this point.
3. There shall be no quota on how many users can possess the title, and thus there shall be no quota on how many successful nominations can be made per month, unlike UOTM. I assume this is obvious, but I'm including it for clarity.
4. A user is disqualified from nominations if they are blocked on the wiki. This applies if the user is currently blocked, or is blocked during the process. I considered global blocks, but realistically they are difficult to police, and the details are never shared with anyone not employed by Wikia. While it may be obvious in some cases, I don't think we should start a precedent in this direction.
5. If a user becomes infinitely blocked on the wiki or the equivalent in the cc or other chat media, then the title shall be stripped from their accounts. I would guess the vast majority of established user blocks are for UTP infractions and users in this situation are evidently not representative of the wiki's values and thus should not represent the wiki in-game. I do not imagine this would be a common point to enforce, but no doubt it has happened in the past and will again in the future.
6. Self-nominations shall be automatically void. If someone is genuinely worthy of the title, it will no doubt come in due time. As with RfA, RfCCA, UOTM, etc. the nominated user should accept or reject the nomination as they see fit. This implicitly requires the person to have an active account on the wiki.
7. There shall be no quota on how many in-game accounts tied to a particular user may have the title. As with many other wiki-related roles, the trust, or in this case award, is tied to a person. If that person chooses to play the game with 20+ accounts, I see almost no reason to place any limitation on that. The only exception I can consider is account trading. If people feel this is a problem, I would propose an in-game total level requirement of something easily obtainable such as 200 to alleviate those fears.
8. All users with accounts older than 2 weeks shall be able to vote for the nominations, as well as nominate any user. In the interests of fostering a community, I don't think adding arbitrary edit requirements is necessary as it may exclude those in the clan chat from voting. However, this restriction should still prevent any sock-puppeting.
9. As with UOTM, the nomination shall include a paragraph explaining why the nominator feel someone deserves the title. Unlike UOTM, both supports and opposes (with an optional reason) are valid voting options.
10. This is a filler proposition because "10 commandments of the Wikian" sounds better than 9.

A possible technical issue with the above is the removal of the title as outlined in 5. If known I'd appreciate it if Gaz could comment on the feasibility of said point. I've ignored the suggestion of tiered titles, as it requires additional input from Shauny and I don't think they're ultimately necessary. User:Cqm/Signature

Should also bring up the S:C and Category edits. Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:08, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

They're already covered by point 1 (Category = non-userspace; S:C = compelling case) Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:13, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

If a user becomes infinitely blocked on the wiki or the equivalent in the cc or other chat media, then the title shall be stripped from their accounts. ... Is it possible to remove the title? I'm just wondering. --User:Saftzie/Signature 08:58, December 2, 2016 (UTC)

Support but I'd like a minimum account age (at least two weeks, since you're making that a requirement for voting), preferably a month. I would also exclude the user talk and Exchange namespaces. Messages left on user talk are most likely not directed at the community, and manual Exchange updates are not a particularly significant contribution since they're automatically updated anyway. --Iiii I I I 00:00, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

I left user talk edits in so as to account for users who might engage in anti-vandalism. As for exchange edits, I'd hope that would be covered under point 2. User:Cqm/Signature

Support - Though I think 500 edits may be a bit too few, especially since they would include talk page discussions and "easy" edits like reverting an image or fixing a typo. Which is not to say that people who do only that do not embody the wiki well, because even the smallest helpful edits are of course appreciated, but considering there are wiki veterans around with many dozens of thousands of edits, it does seems a little..bleak? Also, support 7eye's age proposal. A month mayhaps? Fswe1 07:58, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

Support - I also agree with what I7 said above. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 09:23, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - http://i.imgur.com/xWr3Q0B.png
http://i.imgur.com/LQReGvV.png
http://i.imgur.com/VtOnv94.png
http://i.imgur.com/0iQIKsF.png
Bonus:
http://i.imgur.com/XF6zLS9.png

Haidro ^(talk) 09:59, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

Cook does have a point, someone could make a great contribution and don't have 500+ edits. And the process will filter out the ones that don't earn it. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:11, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with lowering the edit requirement any further than 500. The title should be for people who've made "a significant contribution to the wiki", as onei said, not "reasonably effective editors". The combination of minimum editcount and age should get users to edit often and for a longer period of time, which will hopefully get them to stay even after they've gotten the title. Anyone that's made a huge impact in so few edits is a rare exception and is already covered by "...this can be overlooked if there is a compelling case". --Iiii I I I 19:26, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point, I7. It's kinda what I meant. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:24, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I love everything CookMe said above. Very good points.Degenret01 (talk) 19:48, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

Support I think at least 100 edit (and be active) should be a req for eligibility for even requesting the title.

--Manpaint55 (talk) 13:21, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

“	Self-nominations shall be automatically void.	”
	— Cqm

You cannot nominate yourself, you need to be nominated :P Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 13:40, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

What's with the hate on self noms? - In the past some of our best admins were self nominated. If we regulate this, who will go back and nominate the many who contributed great things in the past and deserve the title? Admittedly, there are few of those left who still log on either here or in-game, but some do exist. If we will have a process to filter out those undeserving, then it will also eliminate those who self nominate based on other reasons. Degenret01 (talk) 16:50, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

I self-nominated for both my RfA and RfB. I'd like to think I turned out half decent. However, this isn't RfA, or any other request for rights on the wiki, so I disagree with your premise.

For those who contributed in the past and made the wiki what it is today, how will they know they've been nominated in the first place? It's a bit of a flashback to RuneScape:User of the Month/October 2010. I agree with Cook's point about this possibly being a pillar of the community in the future if we handle this correctly, and singling out long inactive admins doesn't seem in the spirit of that. We could look at a grandfathering rule, but realistically no one's going to track down each and every admin and their display name in the hope that they still play. User:Cqm/Signature

I just hightlighted what Cqm said above, doesn't mean I'm personally against it. :P Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:24, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Support, with changes -

• Reduction/removal of the number of edits requirement (100-200 at the most, I think), with a heavier emphasis that the requirement is a guideline/suggestion and is ignorable. I tend to agree with Cook that we shouldn't be exclusionary about this. We need to get new editors and this is a great way to encourage it.
• I can't guarantee being able to remove it from anyone on demand. Treat removal as 'emergency' only.
• I can go either way on restricting self noms.

Things about the actual process later.  @Gaz#7521 19:11, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

In truth, the 500 edit requirement was a bit of an arbitrary figure designed to stop someone farming edits in a short period of time. However, if self-nomination restrictions remain along with the consensus requirement, then I don't have any issues with dropping it to a significantly lower number or dropping it entirely. Between the discussion here and on discord this morning, I'm wondering whether to alter point 1 to simply require a 2-week old account to be eligible for nominations and leave it at that. User:Cqm/Signature

stuff - I think the part about having >200 total level does mostly cover my concern about having the title on too many accounts (which would also simply spam the mods dealing with this). However, I would make that a requirement for any second title requests. If someone has a very low total level, or simply does not play on their high-level account anymore, they should be able to have their actively-used primary account with <200 total get the title. Of course this would make it possible to get the title on 1 dummy account and then get it on your main, but it still prevents excessive dummy accounts from having the title. I know, this is an uncommon situation, but it might be useful to mention.

Now, regarding the concerns about self-nominating, I think it'd be useful to add an extra point that would cover previously active users who did make a contribution. I'd say that anyone should be able to get the title who meets the rest of the requirements (such as not being banned etc.) AND either been UOTM, has (Admin|Full-bot|Chat mod)+ user rights or is elligible for a Clan Chat rank (incl. ET). In those places the user would have already passed a discussion (or vote in the case of UOTM), so I'd say it's unnecessary to require another vote about the same user. And no, of course you wouldn't have to go digging in the archives to find what everyone's username was; simply give them the title when they ask for it.

For the rest of the users, I think a strict requirement would be unnecessary, as some others have pointed out, since the discussion or vote will already consider points such as editcount automatically. While keeping the title a bit more exclusive than "Has edited that one time", I definitely do agree with Cook that people should not be judged too harshly. A title is not something that gives people any extra rights (except for bragging rights of course), so it should just be treated as a token of gratitude, basically.

Sidenote: Jeff Wang '16 would meet every single of cqm's requirements (because globally disabled accounts weren't excluded via these rules). So I say we contact his local government to give him the title :D

PS: I suggest making a reddit post about the new title as soon as it comes out. Perhaps it'll encourage some of the active redditors to pick up on fixing small mistakes more often (ie. decreasing the roughly 80% of wiki users that, despite taking the survey, don't usually fix mistakes they find on the wiki). They are already involved enough with the wiki to take the survey, so surely they'd be willing to do a bit of work to get a shiny new title. It's like dealing drugs: first give them the taste of editing the wiki by promising them a title at the end, and then BOOM they're hooked and can't stop editing. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 01:36, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

I believe Shauny is planning on making an announcement on the forums/reddit when the title releases so we don't need to. I don't really see the big deal with letting someone who uses multiple accounts have the title on all of their accounts. In the end, I think we can trust Gaz's discretion on matters such as that. I'd say we can probs just ignore UOTM users since that was from a different time, long ago. User:TyA/sig 03:19, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jeffwang doesn't qualify due to the inability of him being able to accept the nomination. Nice try though :) User:Cqm/Signature

Support - support the proposal, no issues with any of the proposed changes. --Deltaslug (talk) 03:07, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Support (again) - same as Deltaslug Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:24, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I've been thinking about it, and in the end it would be better for the wiki if the title was a simple request-based thing after a threshold of edits (500? 1000?), rather than a UoTM-type thing without self-nominations. It's a great opportunity to encourage people to start editing. Don't turn it into a popularity contest that UoTM was. 5-x ^Talk 17:44, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

We'd only be copying the structure of UotM, no? Also, nothing here should ever become a popularity contest, but think about this. If such a person is popular among us and is favourable towards many, doesn't that technically emphasise our trust in them, and therefore they may receive the title? Haidro ^(talk) 04:45, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Per CookMe and 5-X - Don't turn it into a popularity contest that UoTM was - Degenret01 (talk) 18:19, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I would suggest having something like the vague guidelines we give for people requesting clan chat rank, rather than a long list of specific requirements. Really what we are looking for are:

• Editors who have made some significant positive contributions to the wiki (I do think having some kind of suggested edit count would be helpful for people making nominations, but our guidelines should make it clear that the number is a guideline and not a hard requirement and that we are looking for quality editing rather than a particular number of contributions).
• People who are trustworthy enough to represent us in game (i.e. not people who are blocked/disruptive/breaking UTP etc).

Aside from this I think we should decide whether we want the title to be about being involved with the wiki in general or about being involved in editing. Personally I would like to see the title reserved as something signifying that a player has knowledge of editing, as I mentioned above. Therefore I don't think people should be given the title automatically because they are ranked/active in the clan or on the events team: currently the processes for these kind of positions do not require candidates to be editors of the wiki. I also don't think having passed a UoTM in the past should guarantee being awarded the title: as others have pointed out there's been issues with at least one of the previous UoTM winners and apart from that many have gone inactive. Anyone that was UoTM in the past and is still active should easily pass the title request now. I do think we could make it so admins can receive the title as part of their request for admin in future (as with how people can request clan rank in a RFA now if they feel they would use it). Current admins could also get given the title without having to make a formal title request (since RFA already assesses the things I think we are looking for in giving out the title) - would help cut down the number of initial requests for titles.

Couple more things:

• Can we at least ask Shauny about having the ability to remove the title in case of a disaster/emergency later down the line?
• Shauny said that he would be maintaining some kindof list of who has the title unlocked. Could we get access to that to keep a record of who has the title? Or make a list ourselves?

IsobelJ 18:37, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with asking Shauny about title removal as a possibility - some people just don't deserve a reward or even a simple thank you ("reward" meaning a participation thing, not a competition thing), either because they aren't active or they're active in vandalism and such. If they got the title somehow, it could reflect badly on us, I'd think. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 22:42, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - This entire thing is sounding more complex than it needs to be. No nominations, just a simple check for the number of edits performed and if they have caused harm or benefited the content on this site. If people really want to alter articles in a manner that is not helpful and just to get to a specific threshold for the final tally to obtain the title, then they shall be ignored.

As well, going into how it is given in-game, those same people would probably pester Gareth to have the title added to their player account. In whatever capacity this is to be awarded at, it shouldn't be complicated. Ryan PM 10:14, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - IMO circa 100 edits should be enough, too few and the title is worthless (as someone mentioned before), but it also shouldn't be too hard to get it. I also agree with the above comment that this shouldn't be made too complicated. Crowborn (talk) 17:50, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comment/Question - How about quantity vs quality? I think we should decide like this: if the user have around 500 (minors) edits and considered titleworthy by whoever decided to gave titles or if the user have a few edit but the edit he made are massive and contibutionful I think he should still be awarded. What do you guys think about this? manpaint55 (talk) 17:07, December 2, 2016 (UTC)

Support/comments - I also think the title shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly, however not too hard to obtain. UoTM-type process is probably thus the best way to decide who gets the title. Also, as per Isobel, I think current admins should get the title automatically without having to make a formal request.

Lastly, I feel bad that Mol would not be allowed the title (because blocked...), despite him having the second-highest amount of edits on the wiki, and him himself having actually suggested the title in the first place. While this proposal would ideally be blanket rules, it would be nice for an exception to be made for him. Star ^Talk 00:08, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Comments - @Isobel/Stinkowing

- We can do title removals but I'd much rather not, like ever. And if it ever becomes a common thing then I'd have a personal problem with it. I raised the point of the title after consulting with others who agreed with the points raised by myself.

- EDIT: Should mention also that I do have a post needed to post on it. The reaction could become very back and forth but I'm more than happy to argue the points for it. :)

- Considering Gaz is the person who decides where the title goes it should be fine for you guys to monitor that yourselves, I'll have my own list for tracking, hope this answers some of it! Shaunypwns (talk) 02:00, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

It's 2am on Saturday and you're still working? Do you ever sleep man?! AnselaJonla 02:11, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Supportish - I support the small discussion, which would allow us to grant the title to those who contribute in a significant way other than simply editing. However, I think file uploads should count towards the edit count guideline. I also think we can cross out #7, and leave that mostly up to the user holding the Wikian book, but generally be okay with users who use multiple accounts having access to the title on multiple accounts. Remove the portion on removing the title from accounts, as titles will not be removed from accounts as that is unnecessary strain on Mod Shauny bae.

While there are those that think we will all be dicks to everyone who is suggested for the title to the point of not giving it to anyone, I think we are better than that. User:TyA/sig 02:49, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Community title or pixel penis? - How we want to people to see the wikians as? Do we want them to think that people with the title;

• 1. Knows a lot about the game, is open for your questions in game. (High reqs)
• 2. Contributes to wiki. (Low reqs)

I suggest two requirements/guidelines for the title:

• 1. The person doesn't bring bad reputation for RSW.

or the persons contributions outweighs the bad reputation s/he may cause (or has caused). Controversial decisions should be left for admins behind the scenes, everyone knows (or at least should) that we're in good hands, they know what to do, in case if they don't know what to do (aka no admin knows the person) it should be handled in public (YG).

• 2. The person has contributed to the wiki.

50+ edits, account age 1-2 months. There is people who well deserve to be considered as a wikian, but might not be personally editing, or has contributed with technical stuff trough other platforms; e.g. irc, discord. These should be decided by the admins. (or at YG)

Assuming that people come to RSW just for the title: People see the title: A) They want it. B) They don't. -> A) They start doing edits. (Remember, all newcomers aren't the best at it) B) They start doing trash edits, clearly just for the title. C) They don't start editing. -> Some quit after receiving the title, some may continue editing. If we'd have a high edit requirement, it would discourage people to cheat (with unnecessary/spammy edits) and/or give up. Low edit requirement would mean they'd have to get some experience in editing, and the threshold is not too far so they would not give up, and in the end they might like editing, they might stick around.

I'd suggest an account that is older than one month, you can "cheat" the amount of edits, but you can't cheat time. (Old account get a free pass on this one, this is just to prevent people from joining and spamming just for the title) If you're a new editor you might as well take your time and do some edits while waiting. The amount of edits could be looked into case by case, minor/huge/good edits matter more.

Title is not given to your alts, this could lead to account selling (with the title), and trashing wikia name. Why would you have wikian title on your account that is 1/10th of the age of your wiki career? Get it on your main, nevertheless if you play with it. Use common sense, I have nothing against giving it to alts but people can make a shitstorm about it, I suggest that our admins can have the title on their alt, but in the end I don't care.

Self-nominating, if you consider yourself a wikian, aka wikia contributor, and you don't trip over on req/guideline 1 and 2, you should have this title. If no one knows you even exist, you're a fucked lonely soul. Yes you should be able to self nominate.

Direct quotes from Shauny: From stream

• "I'm gonna allow an admin of RSW to go out and give out the wikian title to people who are essentially involved with the wiki"

From discord:

• "I'd say if they're registered and ask. They can get it. IMO"

I don't personally care about this title, I know I wouldn't wear it. I care about the core idea that Shauny had for this title. I care about the reputation, and future of RSW. I'd like to see this title only on all important wikians, but that doesn't do any good to anyone. Low requirements can do both good and bad, and I'm assuming and hoping that the good that comes out of this is the winner in the long term. Metal Angel _{cut your wrists} 04:19, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

So, at first I thought a lot of people should be getting this title, as per Shaunys words ("I'd say if they're registered (at the wiki) and ask (for the title). They can get it. IMO"). But seeing how people like to think that this should be high-requirement title, and seeing how the title is presented in the patch notes, I'm gonna change my suggestion a bit.

From todays patch notes: (5.12.2016)

"The title will be given to players that the Wiki have decided are valuable contributors to it"

"Valuable contributors to the RuneScape Wiki fan site may be awarded the 'Wikian' title."

1. The person doesn't bring bad reputation for RSW. or the persons contributions outweighs the bad reputation s/he may cause (or has caused).

2. The person has contributed to the wiki in such a way that could s/he could be considered valuable for the wiki. Either with high edit count with a lot of minor edits, low edit count with major edits, helping with any wiki related stuff off-line, in-game or in other media.

3. Admins should decide if the person is worthy of the title.

Self nominating - Allowed

Multiple accounts with the title - No opinion Metal Angel _{cut your wrists} 14:31, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Although I wouldn't mind having the title be easier to get than that, as long as the amount of edits aren't as written in stone as a requirement as how helpful the user is seen as by the community as a whole. I don't see any problems with self-nominating either, but it could work either way. Brux ^Talk 18:26, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

Question - A long way up, Degen mentioned the idea of those active in the in-game community being eligible for it. My question then is, what about those who are active in-game, in-clan, but don't have many edits? For example, User:JL5270 is RSN "Juan Luis", and if you're in the clan at least somewhat often, you know who he is. He's a clan admin with avatar rights but at the time of writing this, he has 19 edits. If the thoughts on requirements is leaning more toward actual on-site activity, then someone like him would be excluded from the title. Given how long he's been in the clan, how much XP he has gained for he clan, and his general reputation, I'd argue that a person known in the community in this way should be eligible. There should be some thinking on how it'll be distributed to clan members according to rank. Not sure if I missed anything while reading the above discussion, but this is definitely an important factor that's being overshadowed by the talk of minimum edit quantity/quality.

On another note, what about users who are active on-site but are not in the clan? I'm assuming there would be more resounding support in this case rather than the one I previously mentioned, but it's something else I don't think has been mentioned or discussed much. An example of someone who'd fall into this category would be User:Jlun2, currently RSN "Get The Bond" with over 36k edits and permanently guests in the clan.

At first I leaned toward the 100-500 edit count as a basic qualifier, but seeing as how the title looks like it'll have that as a pretty firm requirement from my understanding, I don't agree with it. Any thoughts you guys?  Panjy16 ★ 10:23, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think people active/well-known in only the clan/in-game should be made eligible for it, if they don't/barely contribute to the wiki, as the title itself is for Wiki contributors, not RSW clan contributors (to quote from patch notes, "Valuable contributors to the RuneScape Wiki fan site"). Star ^Talk 14:44, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - How about instead of X number of edits, we have X days of editing? Having a set number of edits may make them spam edit for 1 day just for a title, then never again. Having an incentive to stay longer may actually get them to become more experienced rather than rushing edits in 1 go. --Jlun2 (talk) 14:57, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I definetly agree with Jlun2 in above comment. It should be given to people who are long-term contributors to the Wiki. This title should NOT be an unlock but show who you ARE. It should be given to those that make the wiki a part of their day to day runescape experience. I myself am a casual edditor and believe I am not (yet) eligeble for such a title. I think the dedicated editors (1000's of edits) who also have been editing long-term should recieve the title. --Galian prist (talk) 15:51, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Jesus christ, this is quite the thread. Dubs decide who gets the title Can somebody catch me up to speed? I just came back from a break, and I have no idea what's going on other that there is a title involved. Can someone TL;DR? --Scuzzy Beta 16:03, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

geez

This thread is increasingly becoming a clusterfuck. So, in the interest of actually being able to give out the title to people, I have written up a draft of RuneScape:The Wikian. I based it on Cam's guidelines and expanded them to be a bit more inclusive - some people are already mad about it being exclusive to the wiki, let's not make it worse by being dicks about giving it out. (On the other hand, many seem to be accepting, at least.)

I have also compiled an initial list of 113 users that I believe should receive the title, to be discussed as a batch - but that should really be a separate thread because this is way too long. (I won't link it here to keep this on-topic, but I'm sure you can find it.)  @Gaz#7521 16:58, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

support - i like the draft and would love for this thread to be over. User:TyA/sig 17:17, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Per Ty. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 17:26, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

support - per stinko  ThePsionic  17:28, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - per le Psionic Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 17:30, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Seaport - perb le sahleex of priddribble --Scuzzy Beta 17:39, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Per that...dribbly...thing...above... what. Fswe1 17:55, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

support - For the sake of sanity. --Deltaslug (talk) 18:02, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - I mostly agree with the draft. 5-x ^Talk 18:09, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good to me. Yellowchese (talk) 18:13, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. Metal Angel _{cut your wrists} 18:31, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Both seem fine. Wahisietel (Talk) 18:37, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Lookin' fine to me. Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 18:52, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Fair  Panjy16 ★ 19:22, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Looks good! Amascut ^{Ia Morte} 20:20, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Excellent work on this Gaz, thanks for owning (literally) this project for us. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

20:36, December 5, 2016 (UTC)