(→Inactive chat-mods and Rollbacks: fixing links to signature of renamed user) |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:The reason I did not list inactive chat moderators and rollbacks is because first of all, they do not need as much elaboration as administrators, who are also the users that people go to to report vandalism, edit-warring, etc. Second of all, the page is for users to see a list of administrators, not chat moderators and rollbacks. The sections for chat moderators and rollbacks are purely to show who has extra rights on the wiki and what the rights do, for those who do not know. That being said, it is completely unnecessary to write additional sections for rollbacks and chat moderators who have fallen into inactivity, because of the reasons I listed above. I have instead made an additional statement pointing users to a list that ''includes'' inactive rollbacks and chat moderators, which is a much better alternative and works fine. Your only argument as to why they should be listed is that they have the same "rights" as administrators. Again, this page is a list of administrators, and the chat moderator and rollback list's purpose is to inform users what the positions are, and who holds them. They do not need as much elaboration as administrators, which have more of a "role". As for creating separate pages, this is also unnecessary. There is already a statement explaining what chat moderators and rollbacks can do, as well as a list of them here. They do not have nearly the same rights as administrators, so it probably isn't necessary to create another page. --{{User:Bullet Francisco/Signature}} 01:29, May 6, 2013 (UTC) |
:The reason I did not list inactive chat moderators and rollbacks is because first of all, they do not need as much elaboration as administrators, who are also the users that people go to to report vandalism, edit-warring, etc. Second of all, the page is for users to see a list of administrators, not chat moderators and rollbacks. The sections for chat moderators and rollbacks are purely to show who has extra rights on the wiki and what the rights do, for those who do not know. That being said, it is completely unnecessary to write additional sections for rollbacks and chat moderators who have fallen into inactivity, because of the reasons I listed above. I have instead made an additional statement pointing users to a list that ''includes'' inactive rollbacks and chat moderators, which is a much better alternative and works fine. Your only argument as to why they should be listed is that they have the same "rights" as administrators. Again, this page is a list of administrators, and the chat moderator and rollback list's purpose is to inform users what the positions are, and who holds them. They do not need as much elaboration as administrators, which have more of a "role". As for creating separate pages, this is also unnecessary. There is already a statement explaining what chat moderators and rollbacks can do, as well as a list of them here. They do not have nearly the same rights as administrators, so it probably isn't necessary to create another page. --{{User:Bullet Francisco/Signature}} 01:29, May 6, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Per Bullet.---{{User: |
+ | :Per Bullet.---{{User:~Flare/Siggy}} 01:30, May 6, 2013 (UTC) |
What about my idea for Sonic News Network:Rollbacks and Sonic News Network:Chat Moderators? These pages can list all those users who have those rights, and can elaborate more about what there duties are. {{User:SilverPlays97/Sig}} 01:34, May 6, 2013 (UTC) |
What about my idea for Sonic News Network:Rollbacks and Sonic News Network:Chat Moderators? These pages can list all those users who have those rights, and can elaborate more about what there duties are. {{User:SilverPlays97/Sig}} 01:34, May 6, 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 10:14, 7 September 2013
Name Error
User:Rainbowroad6w's name is misspelled in the Rollback section. Serious Sam 
Heavy 01:03, December 10, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
58SlugDrones! has been active once again, I figure this should be updated. Serious Sam Heavy 01:15, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
- Done. -- Supermorff 01:51, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm supposed to be in the rollbacks section, since I'm a rollback now.
Just updatin' you, Morff. Pinkolol16A Sonic fan who cares 08:26, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Added. -- Supermorff (talk) 19:10, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
It says myself123 is inactive but hes not. someone fix? 
sonic icon 07:21, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. -- Supermorff (talk) 11:16, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
Someone please add User:SonictheHedgehogDude in the Rollback's section. --FreeMilkShakesHere! 16:53, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. -- Supermorff (talk) 17:49, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
Mewkat14 is no longer a Rollback, so her name should be removed from the list. THE REFLEX dancing on the valentine 20:53, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:41, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
Kagimizu
Why is Kagimizu still marked as "active" when he only shows up once a month to update the Featured User interview and very rarely in between to post in site discussions. Mystic Monkey appears more often and he's "partially active", so shouldn't Kagimizu be the same? THE REFLEX dancing on the valentine 10:21, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- There's no official definition. If you think it should be changed, change it. -- Supermorff (talk) 12:16, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Inactive chat-mods and Rollbacks
Why are the inactive rollbacks & chat-mods not listed? They have as much of a right to be listed as the inactive admins. I'd say put them back on the page in a separate list or make a separate page for rollbacks & mods; that would actually be more helpful. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 01:26, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
- The reason I did not list inactive chat moderators and rollbacks is because first of all, they do not need as much elaboration as administrators, who are also the users that people go to to report vandalism, edit-warring, etc. Second of all, the page is for users to see a list of administrators, not chat moderators and rollbacks. The sections for chat moderators and rollbacks are purely to show who has extra rights on the wiki and what the rights do, for those who do not know. That being said, it is completely unnecessary to write additional sections for rollbacks and chat moderators who have fallen into inactivity, because of the reasons I listed above. I have instead made an additional statement pointing users to a list that includes inactive rollbacks and chat moderators, which is a much better alternative and works fine. Your only argument as to why they should be listed is that they have the same "rights" as administrators. Again, this page is a list of administrators, and the chat moderator and rollback list's purpose is to inform users what the positions are, and who holds them. They do not need as much elaboration as administrators, which have more of a "role". As for creating separate pages, this is also unnecessary. There is already a statement explaining what chat moderators and rollbacks can do, as well as a list of them here. They do not have nearly the same rights as administrators, so it probably isn't necessary to create another page. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 01:29, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
What about my idea for Sonic News Network:Rollbacks and Sonic News Network:Chat Moderators? These pages can list all those users who have those rights, and can elaborate more about what there duties are. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 01:34, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I edited my original post. I oppose the idea for the reasons above, as their "duties" are already explained on this page (and the chat policy page for chat moderators) and they do not need further elaboration. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 01:38, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
- If there are any who haven't had a long period of inactivity or have announced their inactivity, I'll readd them to the list, though. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 01:54, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
Last edit section
I think it would be nice to have a row for the last edit these users have made. It would show active they are, so newbies can know who was online last (or to remove them from the list if they are inactive). Thoughts? SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 20:41, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
- That's really unnecessary. We're already listing them, isn't that enough?. Oppose. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 20:47, August 23, 2013 (UTC)