I'd like to suggest that we introduce new privileges for users which have been around for a while and have made significant contributions to this wiki. I was thinking that we could introduce a system similar to the AC Wiki's Instruttori, but with more rights than standard users, but less than admins. This is merely a suggestion of something which appeals to me, as I can name at least three users right now who I think I'd be perfect either moderating forums, or being trusted with rights such as rollback. I'm a firm believer in rewarding hard work and commitment, which is a token attribute here, and I believe that we should promote users for that hard work. King Cousland | Talk 22:52, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I don't believe we need to be creating artificial ranks for administrators. Instead, Wikia has a group setting which allows users to roll back changes - the patroller. D. suggested removing this group earlier and it has since been removed.

But, it sounds like you've changed your mind since. You said that such a person should be, "perfect either moderating forums, or being trusted with rights such as rollback". This is what you're looking for. While I don't want to create artificial permissions for administrators, I am for adding people to the patroller group. I think the entry level should be low, and anyone who has sufficient constructive edits to the mainspace can be added to this group if they wish. In addition, I think it is important to distinguish between an editor and a moderator. In your original post, you described a moderator and a patroller. Neither of which are actual content editors. -- tierrie talk contr 23:36, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe have separate groups for "veterans" (Wardens? Just a thought, appropriate to the wiki, I guess.) of the forums and editing? Just a thought - I'm but a lowly lurker. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 00:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Wardens of the Wiki! Tommyspa (talk) 01:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Wardens of the Wiki sounds good! Can we have a position for Court Jester for me? Quirkynature (talk) 01:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Why not. But would you wear outfit? Andy the Black (talk) 01:34, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

My lord. I've started an indent war. For the record, unique titles is generally a bad idea. It makes for... Well, people start trying to be unique, and we can't have that. I'm 100% behind (ye I went there) Quirky becoming some kind of demented "Warden" that's been on his Calling a bit too long, though. Instead of usual "Warden" rights, give him the ability to grant forum/blog users edible treats and stickers. Yes, the stickers should be edible too. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 02:53, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Shotgunmaniac, you, sir, are a true hero. And I'd LOVE to be a Warden who has been on his Calling too long--I am NOT Larius, however. That dude is waaayyy too ugly (no offense, Larius-lovers). And, yes, Andy, I'll wear the suit. Quirkynature (talk) 05:20, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I am with Tierrie regarding this and in my opinion giving a unique names is a bad idea. If we are giving a name, let's give a name that illustrate a meaning. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 03:26, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

True, but bringing back the patroller's group seems like a decent idea. There ARE others on this Wiki who contribute and stand guard against vandals and demented freaks more often than not. I'm with my King on this; there should be a group with slightly more power than us mooks but with less than you bosses. Lieutenants, if you will.

Just sayin'. Quirkynature (talk) 05:20, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I missed the rescinding of the patroller group, but while it never really got off the ground it was implemented for some of the reasons you're suggesting King Cousland. Were it to be used/promoted more, I think it could work. As to rollback, feel free to suggest to either myself or Tierrie who you'd think would make good use of it. At this stage, I don't see a need to introduce a named group who have no extra tools.

If there's genuine support for giving these groups special names I won't object, but I'd like to request that bureaucrats be named something appropriate like "The Old Gods" . Loleil ^Talk 05:55, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Just...yes. King Cousland | Talk 20:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Then we would have to have a group called "The Wardens", simply as a precaution against your inevitable transformation into a sick & twisted undead shadow of your former self. Can the wiki survive an admin Blight? --CommanderCousland (talk) 20:38, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

While I've always stood for a more moderated wiki where admins were more involved in keeping users under tabs, but creating a group specifically for the purpose does not seem worth while. Before we create a group, and multiple levels of authority, I believe it should be considered how much is it really required.
I mean I understand that moderating the forums and keeping vandalised articles under check can be very time consuming, but I'm of the opinion that instead of creating an entirely new group, maybe appointing another admin would be more than sufficient.Diain (talk) 09:56, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that (as Loleil) mentioned, reinstating the patrollers group could work if was supported and promoted properly. When the group was disabled, I'd been on the wiki for about a year and had never heard of it, but with proper recognition, I think extending rollback rights to certain "veterans" of the wiki if you will, could be conducive to a cleaner, more thoroughly moderated site. If we reinstated patrollers, I think we'd need a cap of say...5? There's 6 admins, but User:Maria Caliban doesn't seem to be active lately. King Cousland | Talk 20:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Probably....It's a matter of opinion. As I see it the reason why patrollers group was disabled was because User : Aedan Cousland was made an admin, and because there wasn't much for someone with just 'patroller powers' to do. I don't doubt that if the group is promoted properly and people will recogonise it, but what I'm asking is whether it is really required? Do we need more people with some sort of 'extra' authority to manage this wiki? And isn't simply choosing and appointing a new admin more productive than creating a group with users who have sub-admin powers?
Anyway, that's just my two cents and in the end it depends on how the community sees it.Diain (talk) 21:06, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

You make good points, though in my opinion the wiki could use patrollers to deal with vandalism if there aren't any admins around. I've been noticing an increasing amount of vandalism lately, and while users have been extremely diligent, I feel that the task could be made easier if there were a handful of users with extended privileges. In regards to nominating a new admin, I personally don't think we're in desperate need, but if User:Maria Caliban doesn't return soon, I'd be open to removing her privileges until [if] she returns. The way I look at it, if patrollers were appointed, they'd be users who have been consistent in their efforts to help the wiki. From this, I think patrolling could be a rung along the ladder to adminship (Aedan Cousland being such an example, though he was an excellent contributor regardless). King Cousland | Talk 21:19, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see patrollers as a rung to adminship. I believe this wiki has just the right amount of authority figures and there's no need for more. As a wiki, we will see vandalism from time to time. And it's important not to over-react by adding by increasing authority around here. The community did exactly what the free nature of wiki intended for it to do - they undid the vandalism and the administrators banned the vandals. In almost all cases, the damage was undone in under 12 hours.

In addition, I have periodically notified administrators that we are trimming the numbers down from time to time. I recently did this a month ago. As they are inactive, and have been proven themselves to be trustworthy, there is really very little pressing need to make housekeeping any more frequent. -- tierrie talk contr 03:38, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is such a small tool that I don't see a problem it being handed it, as well as patrollers (I'm not sure if patrollers gain the rollback tool by default though). However, rollback is generally misused by users, so users must know what kind of edits must be reverted without an edit summary (e.g., they must have had a history of counter-vandalism, and an understanding when to actually use rollback). I believe rollback rights are handed in if you ask for them (I was granted them by Loleil back then). It should not be about granting them because they deserve it or because they work hard, but rather because doing so will help maintain the wiki.

Unlike administrative tools such as block and deletion, if we decide to revive the group, I think we do not have to make this as formal (the easiest would be to set a project page on the wiki, rather than the forum--this shouldn't be something that needs to be "voted" on). I trust our bureaucrats to know who will be making good use of these tools.

However, I am against the whole "moderator" title, because it's only that, a title. Unless you want to give these users the ability to block and delete, they should instead be an administrator. --D. (talk · contr) 01:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Because "vandalism" came into the topic, I just want to point out that our standard users have done an excellent job to counter the vandalism incidents, even without any privileges. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 04:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

What I like most about this thread is that while although it focused on a real world topic it, at some point, turned completely and totally Dragon Age nerdy. You people are awesome. Xelestial (talk) 20:39, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

We at the Dragon Age wiki can, and will, tern anything Dragon Age nerdy. It is a trait we should all be proud of. I also have the ability to tern any topic Zelda nerdy, Mass Effect nerdy, Doctor Who nerdy, and Star Trek or Star Wars nerdy (which are the most pure forms of nerdisam). Andy the Black (talk) 21:04, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to say it, but it sounds like a bad idea for the stated reason of giving "status" to certain users. In my head I could see users feeling more entitled to this sort of position and headaches would follow (governing their actions for one thing). Balitant (talk) 05:00, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been around a long time, and I'm big on quality control and making sure vandals, flamers and bullies don't run rampant. That said, I have no need for a title. If I see something going on, it is pretty easy to get an admin involved. If you get too many authority figures involved I think ruins the free and easy atmosphere that we all cherish. If there were a small handful of users that wanted some sort of title I wouldn't be totally opposed to it, but I don't see a pressing need for it either. LVTDUDE (talk) 18:07, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

The only time I find theme titles a benefit is if anyone can earn them. If people can't earn it it looks like special treatment and favouritism (sort of secret club you know but can't join). Even though I was away I'd still consider myself a senoir editor but I doubt I'd ever get privileges we seemed to always well populated with admins and in the past I did wonder if I would be upgraded, that was then, now I am not so much because of begin gone and I have given myself another wiki so I don't get so obsessed again :P off subject... man I am starting to get anxious I am still away from home and on some silly slow laptop I am not too happy about, I have plans and projects to do for 2 wikis now! :P ;)  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 00:42, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few vandalisms, like maybe 2 or 3, but it's not like it's a constant problem is it? If it were happening almost daily, and if it were as bad as about a month back I came on and the entire homepage had been wiped clean except for a Skyrim fanboy message, then maybe we'd need a few more people to walk the halls with more authority.

Just a thought, but even if the whole promoting certain members to higher authority roles isn't what's required, or desired, I could still see a place for a title system. But one that's based on the time/contributions a member has made, rather than any friendships etc. It's in place over on the UESP, and it's a simple label with titles relating to advancements in skills in game and other ranks in game. Not sure how you advance really, whether it's post count, user ratings or whatnot.

I just think it may be a good way to acknowledge the time spent on here by some users. Some, in fact most of the people in this thread are among the members I think make this wiki a great place to take a stroll through. Personally I wouldn't be against having some of these guys recognised in some way. If it holds people's attention in a more significant way, or just adds a bit of flavour, I don't think it'd be a bad thing. S13Kuro (talk) 01:43, September 17, 2011 (UTC)