Forum:Improving Inter-fansite Communication

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Improving Inter-fansite Communication
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 August 2010 by Degenret01.

There has been a lot of talk about inter-fansite related activities in recent months. They have all been about different subjects but are all related, building relationships between the other RuneScape fansites out there. Like it or not, communication will continue with other fansites. It's about time we had a discussion about where we're headed in the near future as well as any official communication between the Wiki and other fansites.

Here is an incomplete list of activities we have conducted with other fansites, successful or unsuccessful (feel free to edit this part of my statement):

  • A successful attempt at joining an "alliance" between fansites (The Independent RuneScape Fansite Alliance, which is currently active and operates from
  • A successful attempt to integrate a battle with RuneHQ into the previous Summer 2010 Wikifest
  • There is also continuing discussion about a proposed Fansite Tournament
  • Closed (Unsuccessful) discussion about possibly trading links with The Jagex Daily.
  • As well as previous debate over communication with Jagex (even though this is not entirely related)

This list should be expanded if more communication/activities occur.

Thanks 222 talk 10:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Related active discussions in the Yew Grove


This section of discussion is closed, please continue discussing below.

Comment - We're listed on the IRuFA website. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 17:08, June 12, 2010 (UTC) 

I closed Forum:The Independent RuneScape Fansite Alliance because there was lack of consensus, and because no more details were provided by Qeltar. Do we want to re-open it? It looks live were "affiliated", whether we like it or not. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:58, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, I was just checking last night. I've changed it now. 222 talk 00:16, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Not related but, IRuFA sounds a bit like a trade union, lolXD 222 talk 11:16, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment There's nothing to support XD - Just about every RuneScaper knows about us, but they don't know the Wiki has an in-game community. Letting people know that we have (hopefully) regular meetings with other fansites could potentially bring some great editors and users. Hopefully, this will bring more in-game events so we can get ourselves out there, perhaps a little box on the mainpage like we have for the RSWP. It's very important that we do build relationships with other fansites, the RHQ - RSW bought a lot of rivalry and even hate between the two sites, but hopefully we can change this too a friendly rivalry. I'm very excited where the Wiki is going.   Swizz Talk   Events!   17:20, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

True, there is nothing to support, this is currently just a discussion about where we're heading and maybe to try and control that. If a plan comes up here I'll start a new section 222 talk 00:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per swizz, but with a little less passion XD LordDarkPhantom 18:08, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a passionate kinda guy.   Swizz Talk   Events!   20:57, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - While I'm not sure if IRuFA is the way to go, we definitely need to integrate into the community. ʞooɔ 19:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Question comment - Is this about getting closer to other fansites or about getting noticed in the in-game community (or does one lead to the other)? If it's about fansite relations what more do you want then tourneys? The alliance dosen't look like it went so well. Attending 99parties which are advertised by popular utubers might help with no. 2. [Pharos] 00:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Great oaks from tiny acorns grow =D (regarding the alliance, we are barely affiliated) 222 talk 00:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
This is about HOW we might possibly get closer to other fansites, we are already noticed to some degree (I'm sure our seasonal cabbage attacks don't go unnoticed) 222 talk 00:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure the tourney is one good way to connect to other fan sites but it's not the only way.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If it's possible, we could set up an IRC channel/CC where users go to organise events, etc. with other fansites, this could also be an opportunity to meet other users. Some problems could be people not liking the lay out of the IRC or getting a representative from another site on in the first place.   Swizz Talk   Events!   09:01, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Initial Proposal

The proposal has been modified, please see the new proposal.

Communication/organization of inter-fansite activities will continue to occur as it is inevitable:

*This will be led by a select team, described below. They will help organise inter-fansite activities as well as acting as a liaison and official voice of the RS Wiki. They do not have the only say. Any registered users of the Wiki are welcome to join this committee (except vandals Lol). Everyone else who does not wish to join is free to talk to other fansites. This team is only there to give a balanced and neutral voice for the Wiki, they are also to prevent any misunderstandings from exploding into flaming and harassment against the Wiki (this works both ways).

  • Representatives of the RuneScape Wiki are the users in this group. There will be single co-ordinator who is elected and stays in that position for a certain period of time (possibly 2-3 months), they are only there to keep order, nothing else; they should not use their position to try and exert unnecessary authority or give themselves the final say. Any users may become part of the team.
  • Options for communicating with other fansites include:

:* In game clan chat (seperate from standard R S Wikia)
  • the Teamspeak server (we could "borrow" it for a few hours, or we could use the backup)
  • The Yew Grove and other fansites' forums, as well as the Official RS Forums when submitting an event and other important issues.
  • The talk page on the group's page.

  • Name (not very important): RS Wiki Inter-site Communication Team


  • Recently, in the past months, a lot more inter-fansite communication has occured, increasing the need for someone/people to help steer discussions.
  • Without any official "control" (I don't like that word, but I can't think of another) talks between fansites may not reflect the opinions of Wikians. They may also break down or lead to flaming instead of constructive arguments.
  • More will be added.

'Any ideas, please post below in the discussion...

Discussion of possible home page

Please do not discuss this page until the Yew Grove changes are implemented. That means wait until this team is active and in the meantime, PLEASE contribute to the Proposal Discussion. Thanks.

Guidelines for posting

  • Support/Oppose - Supporting or opposing a part of the proposal. Should include a suggestion to improve or remedy disagreement
  • Idea - Any idea or addition to above proposal.
  • Comment - Commenting on proposal.
  • Question - Questions related to proposal.
  • Compound stances are fine i.e. Oppose with Idea - Explain why they don't support then rambles on with genius idea...
  • At this time, ideas for the proposal are more valuable than just an opinion.


It appears there is adequate vague support for this idea. This is the proposed timeframe to finalise this proposal and get the group into action.

Week 1-3 (Stage 1a) - Leaving thread open for discussing the Initial Proposal.

Week 3-5 (Stage 1b) - Finalising proposal, working out details based on comments. (this might drag on)

Week 5+ (Stage 2) - Submitting to Wiki Guild. Requesting volunteers. (this may also take longer than expected. Also, this is where it's do or die.)

Week 10-15 (Stage 3) - The group should hopefully be up and running.

Currently - Week 2 (S 1a)

If everything works out we'll be done by my Term 3 holidays =D

Proposal Discussion

This section of discussion is closed, please continue discussing below.

Comment - Only a few people can talk to other representatives, and the certain people change every month?   Swizz Talk   Events!   11:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Read the updatedmany times! proposal. This is mainly affected by the wishes/demands of other fansites. Like it says, it will change. Regarding the reps, not all the people change at once, similar to the aussie senate a fraction of reps are changed each month (i think it's a third in the senate). Also, they are just the official "mouthpiece" for the Wiki, everyone else can be free to chat. Once more, this will change. 222 talk 11:31, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Wayyyyy too bureaucratic. ʞooɔ 18:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. We need ideas. 222 talk 00:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree somewhat, but how else can it be done? 222 talk 01:00, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
We don't need some huge, rotating committee that is voted in by the community every month. That's way too much trouble. ʞooɔ 01:52, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Huge, rotating, ha ha =D. Agree. Read Sentra's idea below, I think its better 222 talk 01:53, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Have we brought you to the dark side yet? I think we've addressed most of your concerns. We have cookies!=D 222 talk 09:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not? Coelacanth0794 01:10, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Changed to support see below - I agree with cook, maybe if it worked like the RSWP with a chair person, deputies, ect. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:31, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate, I'm confused 222 talk 01:40, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to say this should be organised in a similar fashion to the Wiki Post, also you have 2 the's in ur post 222 talk 01:44, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the 2 the's one was ment to be like, and yes i am saying it should be run similar to the Wiki post. Also this group could also help organise wikifests. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
You should add to the above proposal. I won't be able to write it exactly as you think.222 talk 01:49, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
That should work, though I don't think we need to "elect" people. If they want to be part of it, they can. ʞooɔ 02:02, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
There will be a chair person who is elected and stays in that position for a certain period of time, the there are two deputies of which one will become the next chair person. There is then some other people like board members who are there for a certain amount of time and then certain ones go up to become deputies when there is a space. Anyone can become a board member but you need to be elected for deputy or chair. How does that sound? if you like it add it above. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:26, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Added more from your comment. 222 talk 02:48, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, its kinda based on RSWP mixed with a company board.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:57, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral- What ever happened to AEAE? So now someone has a better voice then I do? xScoobsx Talk Contribs 20:48, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

And if the runner of this can't even spell organization right we might have to just have someone else run this. o.o Jk.. jk.. Just found that funny. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 05:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's the British spelling. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 05:54, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is British spelling and how does AEAE come into this, electing people to help organise, this doesn't mean they have the only say, if most people on the site aren't happy with it, we would decline or change it plus 13 people makes up a pretty well rounded mixture of the wiki.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:10, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
True, I see where you are coming from. I guess it would be best if only a select few were chosen would be better then having some wikians talking immaturely or whatever. Changing to neutral. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 07:33, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding where we come from. Any suggestions to improve the current proposal? 222 talk 09:54, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


I don't think we're supposed to bump threads like that anymore. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 01:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Since when? C.ChiamTalk 03:46, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
There's no official policy, but I think it's discouraged to do so, as YGs just clog up the RfC category, whereas they receive enough attention already. I think better ways of bumping a thread were to make a comment, suggestion, stance, reply, etc. I'm neutral on that though; just saying what I know. Chicken7 >talk 05:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I've made a lot of comments, but I don't have anymore ATM... 222 talk 07:19, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Extremely oppose to anyone or any "position" having any names such as chair, council, deputies, or any other name at all. No representatives, no electives, no Jedi knights, no alcolytes of Zammy. Just people. When Stelercus organized and ran the fest, he just did it. Period. So a few of use will be talking to other fan sites to organize events? Awesome. Just do it. We need to know who they are? Fine, decide who it is. But stay the hell away from any titles.--Degenret01 03:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am starting to seriously regret ever suggesting this inter fansite talking now. Your turning what was a good idea into a bureaucratic mess where people spend more time arguing over positions, and little to none over getting something done.--Degenret01 03:36, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
This actually has nothing to do with the Fansite tournament that is a whole different thing.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:10, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Instead of opposing everything here and everything it stands for, why don't you try and help improve it. I strongly request that you read the proposal properly before making suggestions about Jedi Knights. This is to help organise talk and prevent misunderstandings occurring between us and other fansites. We don't want RuneHQ or some other site flaming us because of a misunderstanding caused by a disruptive user. 222 talk 06:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I made a great suggestion. "Just do it".--Degenret01 07:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, what are you suggesting? Form a WikiGuild? Also, regarding another previous contribution: we aren't bickering over ranks, etc. thats beside the point. I'm not trying to be bureaucratic and put everything under my thumb. Or anyone else's for that matter. 222 talk 08:17, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I can't "Just do it". One: I need adequate support for this to function. Two: This is a very big change that need community consensus. 222 talk 07:19, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Further elaboration - every organisation needs someone to lead it. This isn't a one off Wikifest, it is a committee that functions every day. The chair isn't going to get everything their own way, or rule with an iron fist. In addition, the chair and deputies change often to keep things fair anyway. 222 talk 08:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
(If I'm interpreting this correctly) Degen's not saying there shouldn't be someone in charge. He's saying that the person in charge shouldn't give themselves a some sort of arbitrary name, like chair or leader, or form any sort of council with deputies. He's saying they should just be a group of interested wikians, possibly one of which organises them, and instead of debating rule and regulations just get on with it and contact the fansites. Think: Hi, myself and my fellow users (list names of interested wikians) of the RuneScape wiki are working on improving inter-fansite communication, would you be interested in blah blah blah?, not Hi, I'm the chair of the fansite communication panel on the RuneScape wiki, and these are my deputies, would you be interested in blah blah blah? If so, please (insert process). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 09:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
True, I see your points 222 talk 09:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not saying that we are gonna use your second contact example, the chair and deputies are just there to keep the team under some sort of control and prevent it from spiraling out of control. I've modified the name too. It's not that important anyway, just a word to identify it. 222 talk 07:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose bureaucracy - No need for something formal. Just let them do it if they want, or stop doing it if they don't want. Also per degen, no need for formal names. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 09:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

These names are not that formal, or authoritative. Also, we need these roles for the incumbent to perform their duties of keeping order and suspending disruptive members. Do you support the role but not the names? 222 talk 08:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like... - ...people don't want the bureaucracy, but they like the idea. See the edited proposal. Thanks 222 talk 09:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to make an observation about what I see as a difficulty for the Wiki when acting as a single entity, whether that be our Twitter or Facebook accounts or, as in this case, or interactions with other fansites. By its nature the Wiki is a collaborative process with no single person in-charge but, as soon as we want to act as a 'single group' in the wider RS community, we also need to be able to speak with a single voice. It's no good trying to organise a inter-fansite activity by having 6 different Wikians make 6 different arrangements with the other fansite nor is it any good to have 6 different Wikians broadcasting from 6 different RSWiki Twitter/Facebook accounts.

I don't think that it is representative of the whole Wiki to have one (or two) people responsible for what is broadcast as "the word of the Wiki". Granted I don't have any credible alternative to the current set-up nor, I hasten to add, do I actually have any problem with anything that has been said on either the Twitter or Facebook account. I think that both initiatives are a good step forward in promoting the Wiki and expanding our online community, but they serve to highlight the fact that to achieve anything meaningful in the wider community, we have to be able to speak with one voice.

To tie this back into the current discussion, while I have no wish to see an added layer of bureaucracy or the introduction of 'community organiser' titles that will no doubt be fought over, I do think we need several individuals (and I stress that this should only be a small number) who are willing and capable of speaking on behalf of the Wiki in such matters. It should be advertised (again I'm not strong on the details) that this is the group who should be spoken to if another fansite wants to organise an event and the group should be responsible for upholding our side of any arrangements that need to be made.

Reading back (and correct me if I'm on the wrong track) this seems to be what both Degenret and Gaz are getting at. The biggest problem I foresee with this is, as already hinted at in the discussion above by xScoobsx, is disputes arising in the determination of who should make up the representative group. Again I'm lacking any particularly brilliant solution (noticing a pattern!) but I suggest we just give it a go with a group of volunteers as our 'representation' and try to deal with any problems as they arise. Dechaineux Talk 14:47, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

That is really true, and it is one of the flaws of our system. There's not really much we can do unless someone wants to become "Supreme Ruler of Fansite Communication", which, correct me if I'm wrong, probably won't work. ʞooɔ 18:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
This isn't just a flaw in the Wiki system, it's a flaw in all representative democracies world-wide and there is no way to fix it at the moment. Hopefully, giving the chair and deputies a small term is short enough to deter greedy people who want power. Also, theoretically, everyone should get an equal opportunity at being nominated for the chair. Frankly, I don't see any other option besides a small but diverse group doing their best to represent the Wiki and what it stands for. If anyone has a better idea, please suggest it. 222 talk 05:51, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Would I be right to say there is "adequate" support? 222 talk 00:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

NO You are still using the words chair and deputies. THIS IS WRONG!!!! If there is a team of three or four of you then amongst yourselves decide who is talking to what site. But get RID of your titles.--Degenret01 12:41, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest then? just there is a person who coordinates the group to make sure they are functioning properly.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:46, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Man, I have said it twice already. Have the people doing the communicating just do it, without titles. Go to the other sites and say "hey, I am from the wiki intersite communications team". That is it. Very simple, and much much better. Anyone who wants to join the team at any time may do so. All of the people on the team will decide what needs to be communicated. Then any one of them may do so. Why are people trying to over-complicate this?--Degenret01 13:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
That is what we are doing, just there is one person who is making sure everything is working correctly ect, but they still have the same amount of power as everyone else. Anyone can join and anyone can contact the other fan sites on behalf of it.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 15:57, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Point One - Degen, what you're suggesting is a group with no head. A headless person cannot function! Until you can think up of a better system, we have no other choice. Simply put, without someone to keep the peace, there can be no peace. The titles mean nothing, I'm not bothering to explain more because Sentra's already done a perfect job. Also, this is not over-complicated, do you really think the current system is perfect. Scattered and fragmented groups with completely different goals trying to arrange activities with no help what so ever? 222 talk 00:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Point Two - We are saying "Hey, I'm from the Wiki's Intersite Communications Team...", we're not gonna get the chair to go off and say, "I'm the chair from the Board of Communications, I am the boss, so anything you wanna say comes to me!". Everyone in the proposal is EQUAL, it's just that 3 have titles that give absolutely no superiority and are only used to keep everyone calm and stable. 222 talk 00:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
And a bit more - Will it make you happy if we change the chairs title to co-coordinator?not that it does anything And how is this wrong, thats just a statement with no reasonable argument. The words chair and deputy are not WRONG in anyway. 222 talk 00:29, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm a bit pissed at the sandwich maker no breakfast..., so I apologise in advance if I insult anyone. 222 talk 00:29, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Would you prefer a stagnant, non-functioning group with no chair and deputies or a group that actually achieves something but keeps the chair and two deputies. 222 talk 00:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
You haven't read the proposal properly, or just don't understand it. 222 talk 01:03, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Don't try to twist my words to something I never said or implied in the slightest. No, I do not want a stagnant group, I prefer a group focused on DOING rather than awarding themselves titles. You do NOT need titles to actually do the work. This entire wiki has no one leader, we all get things done by talking to one another. We do not have any leadership titles or positions, just some people with more tools than others to accomplish different tasks. And they get done. Those titles are wrong because they imply authority. That is why it must simple be a small group that talk to one another and decide what to do. Just the way we do EVERYTHING on the wiki.--Degenret01 01:33, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not twisting anything! I'm simply refuting what you have said with my own reasoning. You are not providing a sustainable alternative, and unless we find one, it will stay as it is because there is simply no other choice. Do you really expect 3 or 4 people to achieve anything here? The titles as I have mentioned at least 8 times, do not carry any benefits, the PEOPLE are only there to keep the group functional and in working order. I'm trusting that the community will DO rather than bicker of titles and such. And again, there is nothing WRONG in the slightest about the words chair and deputy. Reason this. 222 talk 02:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not using the words chair and deputy anymore. 222 talk 05:57, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hell No - If you think this is support you have no understanding of the concept of consensus whatsoever. You have 2 supporters (I think?), one of which has the reason "why not". While it's all fun and good to use that as a reason, it has no weight in an argument. The rest of the page is covered in opposes. These opposes are backed up by very good reasons. There is no consensus to do anything of this sort at this point in time. HaloTalk 16:05, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I know what consensus is, enough. I have already (in my opinion) changed the proposal to acknowledge problems presented by the opposition. Its just that they haven't looked at it and said "Look, the proposal's been changed. I have nothing to oppose now." So there. 222 talk 00:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
If I'm interpreting them right a lot of those titled Comment hint towards support. 222 talk 00:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Just for the count. Its 4 supporters vs. 2 opposers (one strong). 222 talk 00:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn't aware that your interpretation of certain comments meant that they should be considered supports. Second of all, we don't just count votes to determine a consensus. We are not a democracy. Andrew talk 04:06, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Comments don't count for anything. Gareth, Degen, me=2? Sentra+Coelacanth=4? Coelacanth doesn't even have a reason for why he supports which basically means it counts for nothing. (Because it doesn't value the argument at all, or even discuss it for that matter.) These facts tell me you have no understanding of consensus. HaloTalk 04:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not considering them to be supports, just that they are leaning towards supporting the idea. Also, I know we aren't a democracy, I'm not stupid. I was just pointing out the numbers so far. 222 talk 04:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
You fail at counting then. Almost everyone on this thread opposes it, and yet you still show twice as many supporters. Comments may never be taken either way. And how are you supposed to know, what someone is "leaning towards". You seem to be assuming an awful lot HaloTalk 04:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Its my PERSONAL INTERPRETATION! it doesn't mean anything to you. If you disagree, fine. But don't insult me. Most of the opposers don't seem to hate the idea, just the bureaucracy, which I'm in the process of correcting. Except I keep getting edit conflicted. 222 talk 04:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm including the supports in the top bit of discussion. They are people who like the idea, before the proposal. 222 talk 04:51, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per Degen. Andrew talk 04:06, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per Degen and Gaz. What's with all these named positions? Suppa chuppa Talk 04:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

There is one 222 talk 04:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How about we change it to just a group of people with no one coordinating it?Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think alot of people would be satisfied by that. Most of the opposers just hate the supposedly large bureaucracy. 222 talk 04:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it, could the opposers please reconsider and maybe change your positions. In essence, the bureaucracy has been stripped down to just a single person who keeps everything civil. 222 talk 04:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Would it be alright if I re-submit a proposal, based on the current one and issues brought up by the opposers and commenters? 222 talk 07:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


The proposal has been modified, please new proposal.

The RS Wiki Inter-site Communication Team will be made up of any users who wish to contribute to improving the Wiki's communication with other fansites.

It will be made up of:

  • A single experienced, mature and trusted user who keeps everything working and makes sure the group is functioning correctly. They do not possess any extra authority, their only role is to make sure the group is functioning properly and to keep the peace; I am emphasizing this because of continuous complaints about unnecessary bureaucracy, this role is essential for proper function!. The Speaker has an indefinite term and a new one will not be elected unless they resign, run out of time or become unsuitable (Corrupt, become a jerk, etc.). This is to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum.
  • The rest of the group is made up of any interested Wikians who have registered their name. Anyone with x number of edits (150 edits? TBC) will be accepted, with the exception of IP's, vandals (obviously) and non-contributing users will be removed.


  • The Inter-site Communication Team will assist improving connections and organise any activities between fansites.
  • They will aim to further the interests and improve other opinions of the Wiki in the greater fansite community.

Communication options

Options for communicating with other fansites include:

  • For any important issues as well as promoting events the Yew Grove and other fansites' forums, as well as the Official RS Forums will be used.
  • Everyday functions will use the talk page.
  • Other secondary options include:
  • In game clan chat (seperate from standard R S Wikia)
  • the Teamspeak server (we could "borrow" it for a few hours, or we could use the backup)

Bureaucracy reduction measures

As pointed out by the majority of opposers, there is too much bureaucracy. As a result the majority of changes in this modified proposal aims to remove excess bureaucracy and therefore also boost efficiency and functionality.

Major items removed include:

  • The replacement of the chairperson and both deputies with a Speaker, with limited extra functions.
  • The removal of most extra privileges for the chairperson and deputies. Slimming them down to a simple role of keeping proper function, which is essential.
  • Other measures to slim down the organisation include extra controls on the users accepted such as an edit count requirement (approx. 150?) and removing non-contributing (in the main Wiki, not the group) members. This is to keep the group at minimum effective size but retain efficiency as an unnecessarily large group would impede functionality and require excess bureaucracy, which as shown is everyones worst fear.

Agenda: Important things to debate and agree upon

  • Requirements of the Speaker to be agreed on.
  • Find a better name (if possible) for the Speaker.
  • Any extra bureaucracy reduction measures (the removal of the Speaker is not negotiable, as the role is essential)
  • Any extra entry requirements, if necessary.

Second Discussion

This section of discussion is closed, please continue discussing below. Discuss above proposal here

Strong Oppose - I don't like the idea of it being a set time as the leader. Indefinite is better. Rotating leadership can be pretty hard on everyone. The best way to do it is to let some one go until they don't have time/don't want to do it/are a complete jerk about it/etc. Also...3 months isn't very long. You learn some basic stuff in 3 months. I think some more longstanding members, who are very calm, and have a great understanding of how things work should do it. Also, edit count has nothing to do with it in my opinion. I don't think there should be a set committee. Things go before the community here. You can't say "Oh, you don't get a say, because you're not on the committee." HaloTalk 04:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I never said that, anything major does go before the community as it says above, Important issues, etc. will use the Yew Grove". Also, the term is only there for fairness in case anyone else wants a go. 222 talk 04:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Also, it is very easy to join the committee, just sign. 222 talk 04:17, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I never said you said that. I was saying that's what it sounds like to me. Now that you have clarified...that's chill. I still don't like the things I mentioned in the first part of my above statement. HaloTalk 04:21, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, changes, indefinite term, until etc. It already says trusted, mature, etc. user. But edit counts remain, so users will have at least some experience. 222 talk 04:30, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This isn't the government, thats just way to complicated.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:04, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Since some people refuse to elimanate needless beauracracy from this group, here is my proposal.

  • The group is any one who wants to be in it.
  • Anytime the wiki needs a message sent to another fansite, we put it on the groups project page.
  • The first person from the group that feels like passing it along will sign under the message saying "I got it"
  • The message is delivered.

It REALLY can be THAT DAMN SIMPLE!!! ANY other type of group is simple clutter with pointless mechanisms.--Degenret01 04:52, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Support - Because it really is that damn simple. HaloTalk 04:54, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We could make an account on each fansite and everyone who is in the group has access to that(as long as they can be trusted).Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:07, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That is basically what my proposal is (with a few extra formalities) But yes, finally someone other than me thinks of something to put here. And simple? I know it's simple, I've just turned what you wrote in 4 points into a couple of paragraphs. But also, do you have any more details there? I can see numerous gaps and lack of information. 222 talk 06:10, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

If you turned 4 points into two paragraphs then you are way too bureaucratic. Seriously. Extra info? Sure, if anyone is unsure of having a particular person on that team, we can vote on whether to allow them to or not. Anyone the community has no problem with needs no vote.--Degenret01 06:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

(reset tabs) Ahem, let me say this, and may you improve it. Tell us important information such as this:

  • How are we going to talk to the rest of the Wiki.
Yew Grove or sitenotice, what ever is appropriate.
  • How are you going to deal with "undesireables"
If the wiki votes no on someone, they don't participate. Simple. AGF.
  • How are we going to deal with problems brought up by other users
Those who disrupt the wiki will be blocked. What else?--Degenret01 06:51, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I meant issues, such as abuse from other fansites or another user wishing to start a inter-fansite tournie.
If they do it on the wiki, they get blocked. Ingame, guess what? There is supposed to be trash talk, deal with it. If you can't handle it, don't participate. And again, we will use the YG when someone wants to suggest a new tourney or something. When we decide what we want, we will tell the talkie people to go talk.--Degenret01 08:01, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Details! 222 talk 06:25, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Merger - Degen, would it be alright if I merged some of the un-bureaucratic bits of my proposals into the above. If you don't like it, just revert it. I'll do my best to keep bureaucracy out. 222 talk 08:08, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, let's just use Degen's entire idea. Because people like it. No offense, but everytime you say you'll get rid of the bureaucracy and it's always still there. HaloTalk 15:16, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but I hope everyone can see there is some missing information. I just want to fill in the gaps. 222 talk 00:58, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Degen said "REALLY can be THAT DAMN SIMPLE!!! ANY other type of group is simple clutter with pointless mechanisms", you adding things will probably be "pointless mechanisims". Please just leave it how it is.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:26, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fine. We'll fix things while we're on the road. 222 talk 01:55, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Should I leave this idea? Degen's doing a great job gathering support and I'm probably seen as being too bureaucratic. 222 talk 02:08, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Request - Request that everything except the "New Proposal" section be archived. 222 talk 04:01, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why?Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:15, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
No longer relevant. 222 talk 06:46, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't really matter, so never mind. 222 talk 06:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Finally. This went from an awesome thread to a noob thread and is awesome again.   Swizz Talk   Events!   06:58, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

{{rfc}} again... 222 talk 06:17, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


Proposal 1 - Degen's proposal.

Proposal 2 - Do nothing.

Simple as that. 222 talk 01:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed A communications page has been made [[RuneScape:Inter-fansite_communication]] here.--Degenret01 13:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)