Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-1687995-20131201180358/@comment-24149941-20131201221000

No. No, no, no, no, no.

There are a lot of things wrong with this suggestion. I'm all up for quality moderation as much as the next person, but what you're suggesting is a total screening of who can and can not be allowed to post. This completely goes against the definition of a Wiki to begin with (Free to edit by anyone). Besides, what marks as 'good?' Going by Wikipedia standards... A 'Good' article has unbiased, accurate and up-to-date information, without any form of unknown speculation. Quality sourcing and footnotes, with a detailed-but-straight-to-the-point description. I doubt the 'senior' editors of this Wikia can consistently meet those standards, let alone the average one.

Secondly, I really don't like how you're begging the team to give you administration rights, offering a compromise in the end 'I would definitely do X and Y afterwards.' There's nothing stopping you from going out and marking pages for redirects, letting the administration know of them. There's nothing stopping you from flagging bad pages and irrelevant pictures for deletion. There's definitely nothing wrong with offering advice to new people about how to edit cleanly and accurately. From a peer perspective, I believe you're asking for a little too much, and the last I want is a good editor getting pulled to the side by the administration for biting off more than they can chew. :/