Forum:Custom Tags

I previously suggested that we give bureaucrats and rollbacks custom profile tags. I am proposing this idea once again, but in a different fashion. Before I suggested that we give rollbacks and bureaucrats the custom tags. It was turned down because it "perpetuated the idea that the wiki runs on a hierarchy" and because "normal users don't need to find rollbacks or bureaucrats". The "idea" that the wiki runs on a hierarchy has never existed. The "idea" was never complained about, nor was it even brought up. The "idea" was created by us users in fear that the wiki would indeed turn into a hierarchy run by a concentrated group of individuals that one could not be apart of. Let me ask this: If the idea was never a problem, why is it constantly being brought up in these site discussions? If it ever becomes a problem, it can easily be dealt with given consensus. Now, the forum will probably be opposed because we want to ensure that this never becomes a problem. However, the chances of this are very small because everything on this wiki, along with every idea, must be approved by the community. If the community approves of it, is there even a problem at all? Now, someone may come along and say that we just want to be completely sure that this will never happen. However, the chances are about as equal as someone hacking into an inactive administrator's account - which was turned down for the same reason. It's rather hypocritical - turn down one idea because there is a small chance of said event happening, but keep another because there is a very small chance of the event happening...

As for the other reason, it being "unnecessary", it is just as "unnecessary" to give chat moderators custom titles, who I rarely see confronted for help. The number of users banned from chat is very minimal. One may say we should give custom titles to chat moderators because they may need to be asked why they were banned from chat, or a question about chat policy. Why not give rollbacks custom titles so a user can ask what "rollbacking" is, what they do, or why they reverted their edit? You may say that this has never been a problem before, or at least, has occurred infrequently, but this is the same ordeal that we have with chat moderators. Chat moderators being approached regarding their ban or whatever has happened just as much as users asking about rollbacks (which has happened). If this is the case, why not just scrap the chat moderator tag completely? Regular users don't need to know, apparently. Also, if rollbacks are listed equally on the administrators page as chat moderators, why not list them equally? A user even stated last time they wanted to find rollbacks and bureaucrats easier, and make sure that said user was a rollback and/or bureaucrat, so why not? Some users don't know about Special:Listusers or the administrator, and they may want to be informed about what a rollback is, so they can question the rollback on their talk page. Is it wrong to be informed? You may say they could ask an administrator if their edit was "rollbacked". However, isn't it easier to ask the user who "rollbacked" your edit? There really is no reason.

As for bureaucrats, this applies here as well. Why not? Bureaucrats are listed under the "comment" section on the administrator page, and aren't necessarily explained in full detail. What if a user sees a bureaucrat nomination on the RfUR page? It really doesn't matter, and there's really no reason not to do it. I already explained the "small chances of the issue occurring" and "unnecessary" in the last paragraph, and I'm exhausted and I don't feel like explaining anymore. I hope this puts an end to the false idea (that never existed, nor will it ever) that this wiki runs under a hierarchy.

There's really no reason for this not to be done. -- 00:43, May 30, 2013 (UTC)