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

Back to page

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

TOO recent edits

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

Significant edits

What counts as significant?

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

DiscussionEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manpaint55 of the waterfiends 11:42, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also we shouldnt just judge by the weight of the edits, I did a fuckton of edit that were big
but that was because I was helping Cook with the bestiary project (even if I think in this
case it was a relatively long thing to do and one the thing that made me earn the tile) anyway
Im saying big edits arent automaticly good edits and we shouldnt judge the edits too quickly
based on their size. manpaint55 of the waterfiends 21:08, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
To Scuzzy - You've said a lot of different things here, some of which I agree with and others I don't, but I want to address your first paragraph specifically. Do you feel that someone who is currently active "rightfully" deserves the title over someone with identical contributions made two or five years earlier? If so, why? And if inactive players do come back to the wiki to claim a title which they should be entitled to by their contributions, why is that an issue? Of course it would be great for them to start editing again and it should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be coerced by the potential "reward" of a title, especially if they have already earned it. That's more likely to turn people off to the wiki's bureaucracy than encourage them to start editing again IMO. If someone has earned the title it should be given freely upon nomination, regardless of future intentions towards the wiki (which can be difficult to discern anyway). As you said, it's just a cosmetic. If someone's only edit in the past 5 years was to self-nominate for the title, but they had made hundreds or thousands of valuable edits in the past, I would give them my support with no hesitation.  Gangsterls  talk 23:54, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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