Forum:Regarding adminship and ranks

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Regarding adminship and ranks
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 August 2011 by Haloolah123.

Previous discussion archived here

Citadels and permissions

Note: Please continue to discuss separating ranks and adminship above.

Note 2: I would advise reading our Citadels page and/or the Game Guide's pages if you do not already understand the basics. If you have a question about how citadels work which isn't covered by those or have a specific question about our citadel, ask away and myself or someone who knows will reply.

Alright. Now that citadels have been out a little over a week, and we've had out first build tick and understand how they work (at least a fair amount), I think its time to add on this section. Since this is so closely tied in with the above section, I decided to not make a separate thread (however if this gets too messy then maybe it should be split: discuss?).

The crux of this section is: How are we going to handle the wealth of new permissions that came with the citadels update?

For ease I have made a table of the current permissions of every rank here. This is a nice visual representation of what everyone can and cannot do, as well as what we can and cannot change. There is more specific information on each permission here.

Not a lot has actually changed with the old permissions. In summary: I have given the citadel editing permissions to the new organiser rank (one above admin) and up, and not to admin, and ranked up admins interested in editing the citadel. The five who I ranked up, plus the three bureaucrats and myself are the people able to upgrade/downgrade/build stuff in the citadel. Also myself and the three 'crats are the only ones able to move the build tick (as it can only be moved back, not that great). If you have any problems with any of my choices then I'll happily change them, within reason.

And now to the more interesting part. Since there are so many permissions, that they can be set on a per-rank basis, and that they can be given to a rank while not given to a higher rank (e.g. for testing currently captains do not have recruit permission, while sergeants and lieutenants do, feel free to check it out). We have a lot of flexablity within the permissions, even if there is still a lot of rigidity. Some ideas:

  • (From above, but as I like the idea I'll repeat it.) Giving the corporal rank (one above recruit) the ability to recruit new people, and rank up some "trusted members of the cc" who haven't passed an RfR. We could do this on a largely arbitrary basis (maybe the person asks an admin, and if several others state that the person is in the cc often and follows the rules then rank up?).
  • Ranks that can do certain things only, such as a rank that can do the things in the Events section of the permission interface.
  • Citadel maintenance ranks, like we currently have admins and citadel admins, we could also have a higher rank that can change the tick etc. Not that we really need it, but the option is there.
  • Use the captain and general ranks for things like initiate battlefield events and rated clan wars leader (ta Cook)
  • more ideas here as they happen

Some things that we cannot do due to the rigidity of the system:

  • I have been asked to provide/questioned about providing a non-admin rank that can edit the battlefield and citadel and such. Now that I have made the permissions table, it is very clear that "Can edit battlefield"/"Mark for upgrade"/"Mark for downgrade" are all only available to be set for ranks admin+. This means that any person with these abilities also has the ability to remove from the clan. Unlike my suggestions above, this should not be done on an arbitrary basis - removal from clan is pretty much the same as kicking now, thus an RfR should be held.
    • Of course, who is ranked to admin is part of the above discussion: should we allow a second type of RfRs to be opened, for applicants to the admin rank in addition to the sergeant rank? Should sysops be auto-admin-ranked? Discuss above, or maybe below if its primarily concerning the permissions.
    • Note that this should be changed shortly, according to the FAQ.
  • more problems here as they happen

So, uh, yeah. Discuss. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:49, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (4)

Comment regarding Citadel ranks - I've already gone and complained about the battlefield not being able to be edited by people below admin rank, and in their FAQ they stated they'd fix it to be more permissible across more, if not all, ranks. Just an FYI. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:54, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


There is too much “should and could” here. Let’s just get this settled down fast. Please support or oppose each of these parts so we can finally get this figured out.

  1. Give every recruit the ability to recruit others. It will solve the problem of us not enough recruiters, and it will be very hard to abuse because we can easily remove people. Because anyone can get invited just by asking and because we have no screening process, no one is any better than anyone else at recruiting.
  2. If anyone feels that a current Administrator/Op in the CC/FC/IRC should not have their tools, they can initiate a review of the that user. This could be similar to a ban thread from the cc before. It would have to be quite intense with a lot of support and evidence though.
  3. Any current Sergeants will be able to apply for a RFCCA (Request For Clan Chat Adminship). This will be just like a RFR but it will decide if you will be able to remove members, and use some of the citadel features, and all of the current Administrator abilities.
  4. Prospective wiki sysops will from now on have to specify if they would like to be given a rank in the CC or IRC, and those things can be taken in consideration when voting on RfAs.

Each can be supported or opposed separately; we would like to try to figure this out promptly. If I have missed anything, please tell me. Thanks, Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 01:05, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


  1. Oppose recruits, support corporals - Giving recruitment ability to recruits just makes it far too easy to abuse the system. I do support giving corporal rank recruitment permission (and no other permissions over recruit), and then promoting somewhat trusted recruits to corporal, on an arbitrary in-game-discussion-only basis. Maybe screenshot it for future reference.
  2. Neutral - I do prefer some of the options I discussed in the now-archived section. Keeping everyone ranked and discussing "who to derank" is a completely different thing to assuming that no one is ranked and discussing "who to rank", which is what I was supporting above/in the archive. I appreciate where you're going with this though, it is an easier option for us in general.
    The main thing I was going for in this was to reduce the number of people in power, especially with the unlogged nature of the clan chat setting changes - many, many times recently I have had to change the permissions of administrators in the citadel to what they are in the table linked in the above section. I have no idea who is doing this and its annoying the heck out of me.
  3. Support keeping RfRs open - Not necessarily for the FC, but due to the clan chat system the "too many ranks" argument is null. Since the clanmate will have joined the clan, changing their rank won't affect the number in the clan. If we ever get to a full clan chat we can deal with that when it happens.
    I believe it would be beneficial to have two tiers of RfR, sergeant and admin. What to do in regards to citadel can be done in the above section, or maybe discussed on the RfR itself, whether the candidate needs citadel changing tools (in reality, its a thing only used maybe twice per tick...).
  4. Support - Per my original textwall.

Please [everyone], don't forget to comment on how to deal with citadels (above section). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that point 4 was discussed in detail in the now archived section, so don't forget to take that into account. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:02, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support Options 2,3 & 4 - Option #2 will prevent power abuse, #3 will allow easier removal of offenders, #4 will draw the line between adminship on the wiki and adminship in the chats. Ronan Talk 18:18, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support actions 1, 3 & 4 - Although I am fully open to the idea that we could do with more CC members, I believe that giving the recruitment option to recruits would cause a fair amount of random or under-evaluated recruitments, this could open the CC to abusers that would then have the power to recruit other abusers, thus harming the CC. #3 would allow CC members to gain a rank which they have perhaps wanted or been supported on for a while but have been unable to apply for due to time restraints or the "too many ranks" part on the RfR. #4 support as per Flaysian's comments above. Slayer-icon.png The Mess Effect Dragonfire shield.png 11:25, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Keep RFRs closed We simply have zero need for any more ranks in the WIKI clan chat. If people want to make this citadel thing what the ranks are all about, please move it to a non wiki cc. There is nothing wrong with the wiki having one, but when non wikians are representing the wiki based on a clan version of a POH, it just does not help the wiki at all.--Degenret01 18:57, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Implying that longterm members of the clan chat that don't edit the wiki can't represent the wiki? There are three examples of users that do represent the wiki while not editing that much - Bull, Yoda, and Warthog, that is, three of the five events team members. And of course, Fergie is almost the opposite, as she edits the wiki very often but doesn't spend any time in our clan chat as she has her own clan to tend to, which of course she is free to do.
I don't see why trusted members of the clan chat shouldn't be allowed to represent the wiki if they are fit for a moderator role. The citadel tools really ought to be left to the 9 or so able to use them unless there's a significant need for a change in the users in future, I'll concede. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:02, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Don't recruiters add the recruit rank to accounts anyway? You'll be claiming we should stop recruiting soon, on the basis that "we simply have zero need for any more ranks in the clan chat". Real Crazy 13:39, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
He is saying no more admin/other non-recruit ranks. Not no more recruits/people added to clan. HaloTalk 15:41, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Allow certain people to become corporal for recruitment purposes. No need for any more admins. You're always free to bring up discussion about someone's rank or op, so that doesn't change anything. Indifferent on other topics. HaloTalk 01:41, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Is this really necessary? I don't see any issues with the way the clan chat currently runs. I'm fine with only Gareth and a few trusted administrators (id est the organizers) being able to edit the citadel and take care of everything, as they are active and have done a good job. --LiquidTalk 22:23, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Notice: - I don't know if Gaz has said this, but we established that sarg+ can now kick guests today. HaloTalk 01:10, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that issue was fixed, and as of today's update any rank can have battlefield edit permission. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:33, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
  1. Oppose recruits, conditionally support corporals - Per Gaz. If there is some sort of bureaucratic process to select who becomes corporal or not, I'd prefer all recruits being able to recruit instead. It's a waste of time and completely unnecessary for such a minor thing.
  2. Somewhat supportive - As others have said, anyone already has the right to initiate a discussion about any rank if they believe they should be deranked/warned/etc.
  3. Support - Seems fine for admins + a few extra trusted users to be able to modify the citadel. Perhaps just as a section of RFR would be better. Creating excessive amounts of Request pages is unnecessary, and messy as well.
  4. Support - I support this as long as it doesn't overwhelm the RfA. Requests for adminship, should always remain primarily about the candidate's on-wiki activities and I do not want to see a candidate being defeated because the comments focused excessively on their activities in the clan chat while neglecting their on-wiki credentials. Also, a successful candidate should receive a rank in the CC and ops in IRC if they requested it in the RfA, but there was not enough debate to formulate a negative consensus. 222 talk 08:52, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


Since I think this has gone on long enough and will not produce anything productive from this point on without some serious work, I'm going to jump the gun and suggest a few things from what everyone (especially those closely involved) has said:

  1. Admins+ will be able to rank up people to corporal (for recruitment purposes) without any need for any wiki history. It will all be based off their activity and a basic understanding of the clan chat/recruitment process. This is expected to only be done by admins who spend a significant amount of time in the chat, at least enough to know who would be good to give this responsibility to. (Also, the setting would have to be changed to allow corporals to recruit, as I believe it is not that way currently.) This is not meant to be a bureaucratic or time consuming process. Basically ask another couple admins if they see that person as an active, trusted person. It should be NO BIG DEAL. Just a simple check and then ranking them up.
  2. Rank in clan chat/IRC will not necessarily be given upon becoming a sysop. These can be added to an RfA, or be done separately (even by people who aren't sysops), but done separately, they will require good reason to, just like anything else.
  3. Requests for rank will reopen since they can now kick and we don't have to worry about running out of rank spots.
  4. Unless anyone presents a good reason why there should be, there will be no additions/changes to those who have citadel permissions. As we really don't need anyone else (Gaz does almost all of it actually).

NOTE: Any changes in rank will only apply to the clan chat, not the friend chat. Just to be clear.

This is a hard thread to read and try and draw some conclusion from. I did the best I could, I may not be spot on. That's why I'm not just closing it and saying this is how it's gonna be. I'm leaving it open for THREE (3) days. If you have anything to say, anything you think I'm wrong on, then go ahead and tell me. Not just something you want to see changed, but something you think I drew an inaccurate idea of consensus on. (Or if there is anything I left out, I tried-sorry if I missed something!) Thanks, HaloTalk 19:52, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1, 2, and 4, Oppose 3 - Looks good, but I will never ever support reopening RfRs. I think I made my reasons very clear in past discussions, and they haven't changed. Andrew talk 20:39, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

I would like citations of what you have said or at least re-iterations of it. Also, are you opposing corporals, or sergeants? Or both? HaloTalk 21:08, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 and 3, now neutral on 2 and 4 - Option 1 will speed up recruitment, I'm now indifferent on option 2, option 3 will allow swifter kicking of offenders, and more ranks can do nothing but good as long as they use their tools responsibly. I'm neutral on option 4, as we upgrade through the tiers we may need more hands, but I can't tell as of yet. Ronan Talk 21:01, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's not like each person can only do a certain amount of work. It's simply setting what to be upgraded. That's why Gaz just does most of it (all of it actually) himself. HaloTalk 21:08, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
The use of the citadel build tools are really only done maybe twice per week. Once shortly after the build tick (by myself both times so far if I remember correctly), and once more later in the week, usually to set one or more decorations up to use the surplus resources. I usually work out the resources needed for the next week before the tick happens (e.g. next week, as long as I've worked this out correctly, we need 4,950 of each, so its likely that a decoration will be made as we will easily soar over 10,000 total resources).
The total amount of work ingame is no more than 5 mins to set up the week's build queue and the resource targets. We don't need any more citadel admins unless many of the become inactive or voluntarily drop their rank. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:29, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 3 There is simply no reason I have seen for more ranks. We have more than enough ranked people to kick when needed. If you start ranking for citadel based reasons then the problems we have seen today will only grow larger and larger. Nip it in the bud.(people were seriously suggesting kicking from the clan those who do not help the citadel).--Degenret01 23:05, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they were serious. At least I hope not...What about corporals for more recuiters? I have to invite like 3-5 people a day. I don't mind doing it, but sometimes I'm unavailable/really busy. HaloTalk 23:27, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'd just like to see a better system be used in the chat. It seems as though all the ranks are jumbled up, and just a bad situation regardless. I'll support that *trusted* recruits be given the Corporal rank, for sole purposes of being able to recruit. As for distinguishing between Administrators and Bureaucrats, just use the two new ranks that were introduced in the update. Just modify privileges or whatever you see fit. Its an easy problem to fix. Adam SavageTalk 00:55, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

There has never been a problem with distinguishing between 'crats and sysops. 'crats were always given general (friends chat) and deputy leader (clan chat), and sysops always have had captain (FC) and administrator (CC) (other than the first few days when the system was new and we didn't realise the kicking issues etc). There are currently 5 sysops (Halo, Ryan, Powers, Wowbagger, Soldier) with the organiser rank, which is identical to administrator, but also has citadel edit abilities - in addition to the three 'crats that joined the clan (Caleb, Dtm, Dragon) and myself. Forumadmins have always had lieutenant and RfR-passees have sergeant (in both chats). I don't think it could be made clearer really. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:29, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support all - Per myself in the other sections of this thread. Also, if anyone has any problems with the current permissions settings, now would be an excellent time to voice your concerns (other than allowing corporals to recruit, that'll be changed that if the thread passes). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:29, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support All - For about 4 hours today I was the only ranked member in the cc, so I had to recruit 6 people this morning. We need corporals. There is no reason to not have rfr open, as we now have space for ranks, unlike before. Halo hit the nail right on the head. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 19:54, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

By opening RfRs, we will soon have an over-saturation of ranks again, and people will be requesting ranks just for the sake of having one, using excuses like "because they can help people" with a rank, just like before. Andrew talk 23:04, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Did you not see that I was alone in the cc for 4 hours today? Me (who will be barely playing once school starts), and Bull are the only sargents who are commonly in there. There is no need to keep them always open, but it should be opened now. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 23:11, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Qwert's right, alot of the people who have passed a RfR have pretty much diminished, there's either sysops or privates online most of the time. I'm slightly suprised you have such a strong voice in this issue, considering you're never online in the game to witness how few of the RfRers are online. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 02:23, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
I'll just ignore your latest failed attempt at a personal attack on myself and my opinion and point out that I am online plenty, just perhaps not when you are. Most of the time I just don't speak. Andrew talk 12:56, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
If you think I'm trying to personally attack you, then you've clearly lost the ball... I would of written out a considerably more threatening message and sent it to you directly. I'm stating the mere obvious, and in the time I've been back in the wiki's clan chat, I've noticed you online once, and I play this game pretty heavily for numerous hours per day, especially during American timezones (I'm a night player). I don't see how you could have such a strong opposition on the reopening of the RfRs, claiming that we have too many ranks, etc, considering how the clan chat currently functions. Like I said below, the "There's too many sysops" argument is immediately dismissed when it comes down to RfAs, which I agree with, you can never have too many admins... But what makes a rank so different that this rule is changed around? It's all about trust, and ability to use the given tools. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:05, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said below, I'm really not interested in debating about how often I am or am not in the clan chat. I really don't care how often you think I'm there for one, but like I also said below, it's irrelevant to this the course of this discussion. Now, ranks are a lot different than sysops. They are just in a clan chat with the power to kick people. Significantly different from sysops, just like the clan chat is significantly different from the wiki. We could debate this forever, but it's pointless, because you won't agree with me, and I won't agree with you. If you want to see more of my reasoning, check back on previous discussions about reopening RfRs. Andrew talk 18:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one last note. I'm curious...why is it that you are all trying so hard to refute my opinions yet not touching others that oppose reopening RfRs right above and below me in this discussion? Andrew talk 18:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for martyrdom Andrew, the only reason (to me, at least) some of the above comments have been directed towards yourself are because the other opposers haven't voiced an opinion since their original comment.

Support All - There can never be enough ranks, so long users who can be trusted with the abilitiy to kick exist in the clan chat, there's no reason to why they can't take part in a RfR application... The "Wah wah wah, There's too many sysops" argument has been debated and left to rot, so why can't the ranks be treated in the same way? Seems a little discriminative to me. As for the other 3 issues, i'm pretty happy with the suggestions that have been thrown around in the thread. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 02:23, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There is absolutely no legitimate reason not to allow RfRs to re-open now that limited rank space is no longer an issue. For nearly an hour just yesterday there was no rank online at all, and as such a new player seeking to join could not do so, and has since left. As Qwert and Wart have already stated, sergeants apart from himself and Bull are rarely to be seen in the CC. A fresh batch of ranks can do nothing but good, as the simple fact that they passed their RfR means they are trusted and recognised by the community. The "over-saturation" argument is rendered completely invalid, as the fact there has been little to no sergeants online at a given time simply proves that more involved and committed members are required. And Wart has made a very valid point above - how can you be so concerned with the welfare of the CC when, in all my five months of being an active member of it, I don't believe I've ever seen you? See below. Ronan Talk 09:13, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I've been online plenty. It's possible that the times we log in are different, and perhaps it's because most of the time I don't speak, but I do watch the chat. Recruiting people will not be an issue regardless of whether or not RfRs are reopened because we're going to be getting new corporals. Andrew talk 12:59, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Also, to prevent this from becoming a debate about whether or not Soldier goes in-game enough (which is absolutely ridiculous and highly irrelevant to the overall course of this discussion), I'm just going to ask you to focus on everything else I've said. Andrew talk 13:01, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I'm sorry and I take back what I said. I wasn't aware that your IGN was Soldier, and I have in fact spoken with you on occasion. However, the rest of my comment still stands. A mere few hours, ago another new user joined the clan looking for an invite, and Gaz, who was the only rank online, was afk, leaving the user uninvited for another hour after that. This is the second time that's happened in less than twelve hours, and I can only speak for when I'm online. Your "too many ranks" argument is still utterly null. Ronan Talk
Pretty sure it's because the usual lack of ranks during this time zone. (With me usually being the only one along side Degen and a few others if lucky). Other than that, I think ranks are at a good number. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 13:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
And as I said, the issue of invitations will be solved regardless of whether or not RfRs are reopened because we're going to be adding more corporals, which is something I have personally supported. Invitations will no longer be such a major issue. Higher ranks are only really needed for kicking, which happens very rarely. Unless you can think of a number of incidents recently where a kick was needed and no rank was on, my argument is definitely not null. While it is of course ideal to have ranks in the chat 24/7, it isn't always necessary, because for the most part people tend to behave themselves. Andrew talk 15:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Fine with 1, 4; Oppose 3; Abstain 2 - I am not convinced that we need more ranks, at least not by the process that we currently get them. Past RfR's have revolved more around personal favors and logrolling deals than actual merit judgments. I can't say this is surprising, because let's face it: RfR candidates have very little to be judged in the first place. It boils down to whether or not the candidate sits in the CC for a long enough time without saying anything controversial. Furthermore, much of the CC crowd does not have a wiki account or goes on the wiki very infrequently. This means that our opinions rendered in RfR's are a straw poll of people from the CC. The issue is that the medium, the CC in this case, is not actually involved in the rank-determination process (this is different from the other request processes we have; for example, RfA is done on the same medium that it pertains to: the wiki). Unless the RfR process is changed, I cannot support reopening them at this time.

As for suggestion 2, I cannot support or oppose it because of my concerns with the RfR process. I will reserve judgment for now to see if the RfR process could be changed to better reflect the individual's capabilities. --LiquidTalk 13:49, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Support All - Look, reading over this, I can't really see any reason to go against Halo's words up there. 1) Having more corp's is no problem. It's not over-bureaucratic, it's good sense. What with school coming up for all, having it so there'll be a few ranks there on weekday's or something is a good plan. Plus, supposedly they'll be knowledgeable, so new people can ask 'em stuff.

2) Sysop's are good wikian's, so proving they are good with the clan would be good too. Not much to say here really.

3) same as having more corp's, hopefully there'll be more new people in the clan: something 10 odd sargs can't really handle. Having more is not a bad idea, and I really haven't seen a convincing arguement to say otherwise.

4) Gaz does all the citadel stuff, 'nuff said. If later tiers get big, there's usually someone on hand to help, it's never to urgent a problem there.

I hope my text-wall outlined my views clearly, and I'm didn't say anything wrong or somesuch. -- Golden warpriest of Zamorak helm.png Wingcap Firemaking master cape.png 15:17, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - All the aforementioned proposals will be passed. There is significant opposition to point 3, however, it is unfounded in reason and the opposition seems to be personal disagreements rather than an actual disadvantage for the wiki. HaloTalk 20:45, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say I call this above sentence some serious bullshit. My reasons for opposing are founded in reason and you disagreeing with it does not give you the right to say that.--Degenret01 06:37, August 16, 2011 (UTC)