Forums: Yew Grove > Multiple addendums

I was going to write this up before the Yew Grove split-up, but since now each topic has it's own thread, I'll just slap them all together as I don't want to make five separate threads at once. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

### Abiding by our own policies

I'll start this five-part thread with a topic we should be concerned about.

#### RS:BLOCK

RS:BLOCK#Bans states that "A user may be banned from editing the wiki, in part or in whole. To be banned, a user in question must have community consensus or Wikia staff approval. Users who attempt to evade their ban are blocked from editing the wiki.".

This is the main focus on the topic of RS:BLOCK: For someone to be banned (permanent block), they must have community consensus. That makes perfect sense, right? Though, as far as I can remember, a discussion regarding permanently blocking a user has only happened once. Let's look at some examples of bans without consensus:

• Blankothe3rd is currently permanently blocked, but had no community discussion.
• Earthere is also currently permanently blocked with no community discussion. He received a discussion on his talk page, but it did not reach a community consensus.
• Vhosythe42 has been permanently blocked multiple times with no community discussion about the matter. The closest to a community discussion was a provoking discussion on his talk page that was nowhere near the standards of a community discussion.

If we were to abide by our own policies (which we are supposed to, obviously), then they would be unblocked and reblocked at a predetermined set of time, or a full scale discussion would be conducted on each of the cases.

On another note, every time a vandal bot comes along, we don't want to have to have a community discussion about banning it. So, I think some sort of clause should be added to the blocking policy, saying that if the account in question does not have a single edit in good faith, then they would not need a consensus.

Secondly, all editors are equal, and Wikia staff wants us to be independent and function on our own without their help. Christine brought this up on the recent discussion about Stinko's desysoping when someone wanted Wikia staff to be the judge.

One of the points of AEAE is that one person can't just decide an outcome on their own. If we needed a judgement on the discussion about Stinko, then a neutral bureaucrat would read through all of the evidence and declare a consensus one way or the other or a 'no consensus' outcome, as according to how the discussion played out, not because of their personal decision.

Which brings to the proposed change. Wikia staff would not have the privilege of deciding something for us when we can do it ourselves. We're not a infantile wiki anymore. We can be self-sufficient very much so.

Lastly, "Users who attempt to evade their ban are blocked from editing the wiki"? If someone is permanently blocked and they attempt to evade their ban, they get blocked? Only blocked? If you evade a permanent punishment by using a different account, that new account gets blocked for a lesser, and thus non-permanent, time? That's essentially a 'get out of jail free' card for banned users. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For most people, block is synonymous with ban. Also, that block policy has never been used, and needs to be completely rewritten. Last, Earthere evaded personal privacy, that warrants a block in itself. Blanko was a disruptive troll and vandal, and Vho is not perma blocked, so that shouldn't be here. Christine 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

#### RS:G

RS:G tells us to have articles on everything, excluding non-interactive scenery and players. Well, appearantly Mark Gerhard and Tom Church are RuneScape players. Do we delete their articles? Why, of course not. They're notable for things other than being players.

But what about Zezima? Sure, he is famous for being a player, but he's also notable for being officially contacted by Jagex and then quoted on the back of the first novel.

Also, what about Siw39? Jagex officially announced her (his?) death in an update.

And what about Jagex staff members? Somewhere, someone said something to imply that only notable members of Jagex staff get articles, but there doesn't seem to be a policy saying that. We have articles on Mark Gerhard, Andrew Gower, Constant Tedder, Geoff Iddison, Vince Farquharson, Ian Gower and Paul Gower. Appearantly, Paul and Ian Gower are only notable for being the brothers of Andrew. Big whoop.

The way I see it, all Jagex staff members that have a reason to be linked to get their own article. Mainly, in update articles at the end when the person who wrote it sign it, so to speak. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

### Clan Wars league?

This idea has been in my head for over a week now, and other Wikians that I've described it to in-game seem to be all for it.

Here's the idea: We could start an official Wiki Clan Wars league. Here are some things about how it wold work:

• Anyone can start team.
• Teams could be as large as the team captain wants, but only up to five members can be in a fight.
• Fights would be done in F2P, rendering members' armor and abilities useless, making it fair for F2Pers.
• Fights would usually be five verses five, that being the maximum, but it would be possible to have less than five members on one or both of the teams.
• A season would start in one month, and end four to twelve weeks later, or something. Hopefully, each team would fight each other team at least once.
• There would be a ranking system something like the following:
• Each team starts the season with ${\displaystyle x}$ points.
• If a fight is won against a team with around the same total combat level (TCL), they would receive ${\displaystyle a}$ points.
• If a fight is won against a team with notably less TCL, then they would receive less than ${\displaystyle a}$ points.
• If a fight is won against a team with notably higher TCL, then they would receive more than ${\displaystyle a}$ points.
• If a fight is lost against a team with around the same TCL, then they would lose ${\displaystyle b}$ points.
• If a fight is lost against a team with notably less TCL, then they would lose more than ${\displaystyle b}$ points.
• If a fight is lost against a team with notably more TCL, then they would lose less than ${\displaystyle b}$ points.
• Teams would be initially judged by the total F2P combat level before going into the fight. For example, a team with the TCL of 130 would be matched up with one of 126 in the beginning of the season.
• At the end of the season, teams would be ranked based on their final score.
• All fights would be done in the classic map with no potions, no food, and no run-ins.
• If one team is caught cheating (I don't know that's exactly possible at this moment, to be honest), they automatically lose.
• The fights would be held in the F2P Wiki world on a Saturday at a time acceptable for most time zones (sorry Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan).

The scoring might be something like this:

• ${\displaystyle x=100}$
• ${\displaystyle a=4}$
• ${\displaystyle b=3}$

This idea is still pretty broad and still to be decided. So, before we start planning this and find out hardly anyone's interested, are you interested in this? Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

### Possible partnerships

Being a great and comprehensive wiki that we are, our community could partner outselves with another wiki. Halopedia has done this with Halo Wiki (as I think it's called), and many other Wikia wikis have done that with each other.

As previously said in other discussions, we won't be trying for a partnership agreement with RuneHQ or Tip.It because they probably wouldn't be interested, among other things. Though, what about a site we could contact easily?

The main sites I'm thinking of are [[w:c:halo:Main page|Halopedia]] and WoWWiki. RuneScape and Halopedia don't have as much in common as RuneScape and World of Warcraft, but the administrative teams have gotten along together well in the past. RuneScape and World of Warcraft- obviously -have much in common. Top fantasy MMORPGs with large communities.

The partnership would probably be as simple as a link in the "sister wikis" part of our sidebar, and they'd link back.

I have not submitted any proposals to either site, as we would need our own consensus before starting to get their's. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the idea here to partner with a similar size community? Because if a smaller community was acceptable you could consider the [[w:c:funorb:FunOrb Wiki|FunOrb Wiki]]. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense for us to partner with anyone but other RuneScape-related wikis. You said yourself that Halopedia links to the Halo Wiki. Christine 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Many RuneScapers and WoWers hate each other :X 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

### Anonnotices

Currently, the Anonnotice is blank, and has been for a long time.

Welcome to the RuneScape Wiki! Create an account and join the community!

Two questions:

1. Should we notify our unregistered users about upcoming WikiFests?
2. Should we tell our unregistered users about our Clan Chat?

With both of those scenarios, we could end up with more trolls in our chat and more disruptive people at our fests. But, seriously, it's not like we can't handle it. If disruptive people join our chat, they get kicked. If they come to our fests, one of the mods will mute them if they really are that bad, or they can just get asked to leave, and added to ignore lists if they don't. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

### MediaWiki:Sitenotice usages

The sitenotice gets too crowded too often. I had no idea this drastic change was happening to the Yew Grove, even though it was notified about in one of the links at the top of every page. The problem that there wasn't just that, but there some half-dozen other links there, obscuring the importance of the important ones. For this reason, I propose a guideline that there can only be so many things on the sitenotice at the same time, and when a new one is to be added, the either oldest or of least importance would be removed. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Especially with lower-resolution monitors (like what I have at work) the site notice takes up half of the screen. I feel that two comments is sufficient for the sitenotice. However, how would one choose which is of "least importance"? That could be a matter of opinion. I am for the oldest though. To make it easier, whoever adds a new comment can simply put <!--~~~~~--> at the end. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree and Support completely, you should try viewing the wiki from an iPhone, the notice is large than some pages on the Wiki. I do know how we would decide what stays and goes and how many at a time though. - 05:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The site notice is dismissible. For users who have trouble viewing others pages, they can simply get rid of it.

19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like to leave the sitenotice up, as it contains a bunch of useful links to various places that I have used more than once each. I saw a good sitenotce idea over at the [[w:c:spore:Main Page|Spore Wiki]] - putting the notices inside a navbox, which of course has a hide/show link in the corner, hiding it if the user wants to keep it up but doesn't want it taking up screen space. The other bonus of the navbox is that things can be categorised - for example, if we implement it, one of the rows could have links to any and all RfA's/RfB's/RfF's/etc in progress, another could be wikifest related, another about important policy discussions in the Yew Grove, and so on. Just an idea. 21:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea, and I also like leaving the notice up, but strongly dislike it take up space, the infobox idea work work great, so I Support the Navbox idea - 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Another quick note.) They've disabled the dismiss button at SporeWiki. We could do the same too, if needs be; its enabled or disabled through common.js, so someone able to do so could change that. 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)