Forum:Regarding adminship and ranks/Archive

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello everyone. I've been thinking about this the last few days/weeks, and after some discussion with others, decided to bring it to the wider community here. This proposal is broken into two distinct but linked halves: separating the many communication media we have in terms of who is ranked/opped, and discussing how to overcome the problems in the clan chat system.

Please note: where I say "clan chats" I am referring to both the clan chat RSW and the friends chat R S Wikia, unless I directly specify otherwise. In general however, this thread is more about the clan chat rather than the friends chat, simply due to the way it works, not to mention the significantly higher activity in the clan chat.

Separating rankings[edit source]

Currently, users who pass an RfA are automatically allowed to become an op in IRC, and given captain in the friends chat and admin in the clan chat (if they join the clan). There are many problems with this:

  • Being deemed trusted enough (and having a use for the tools) to be an admin does not imply that they will be a good moderator. Moderating a wiki discussion has similarities with but is still significantly different to moderating a live chat environment like IRC or the clan chats.
  • RfAs are run pretty much solely on wiki actions only - I don't remember any discussions on an RfA about how well the candidate would do as an op or rank. So the ranks are given out despite not actually being discussed.

Thus I am proposing that when a user is sysopped, they are not automatically given op or ranks at their request. They should pass a separate process to get these ranks.

However, I think that it is fair that any RfAs can also incorporate their RfR and/or RfOp, and if the user specifies this, the voters on the RfA should address all the roles that the user is applying for in their statement. (This could also result in RfAs being partially successful - the user not getting sysopped, but getting ranked/opped.)

If this part passes, then what happens to existing ranks should be considered.

  • Apply the grandfather clause - that is, no change as they were added under the old system
  • Evaluate existing sysops for the suitability for rank/op - given the failure of the admin review threads I don't expect this to be popular.
  • Similar to above, derank/deop all admins and make them go through an RfR/RfOp to be reranked/reopped (or just run the evaluation process but assume that unless they get enough support, they will be deopped/deranked, rather than have a period of time without ops/ranks) - again, I don't expect popularily, but its not up to me.

What to do about opening RfRs and creating RfOp can be discussed if this idea is liked enough.

Regarding the clan chat ranks[edit source]

This bulk of this section doesn't apply as much to the friends chat system, but the proposal will affect it.

Right now, the current clan chat rank system is as follows:

  • Wikians (normal clanmates) have recruit (the lowest rank while still being part of the clan).
  • Users who have passed an RfR have sergeant (three stripes) - this should allow them to kick guests, however there seems to be a bug where they cannot.
  • Forum admins have lietennant (bronze star), same abilities as sergeants.
  • Admins have admin (bronze key) - this gives them access to all clan administration features, including removing people from the clan, changing ranks, changing the motif and various other features.
  • Bureaucrats have deputy leader (silver key) - the only difference between them and admins are the ability to give out the admin rank
  • The only difference between the owner (that's me) and deputy leaders are the ability to give out the deputy leader rank, and to change the name of the clan.

All non-recruit ranks have the 'recruiter' ability, for inviting people into the clan.

Following on from the above section, this is putting users into important ranks who were not explicitly evaluated for the ranks, other than being deemed trustworthy in general.

In addition, with the advent of the clan citadels and the citadel-specific ranks, I think more consideration is required on who gets what rank. This ties in with above, where users running for adminship specify that they also want to get a rank, and are evaluated on it.

There have also been several occurences of someone changing the clan motif to something completely different, despite the outcome of the thread. There really are too many admins in the clan.

I'm not entirely sure what to do about this, but I can certainly throw out some suggestions:

  • Expand the RfR process to allow users to apply for whatever rank they want (maybe a selection of serg or admin, for the respective kicking privileges), as well as discussion on the different admin ranks for citadels
  • Simply move all ranks up to admin to allow kicking by everyone - the problem with this is that admins get all administrative tools, so more people have access to changing the cloak of their own accord and just access to the settings which were designed for only a small number of people to have access to.
  • Reduce everyone to captain as in the friends chat, bar a handful of people left at admin (who to be decided at some pont).
  • Continue as we are.
  • (your idea here.)

Final notes[edit source]

  • I considered splitting this into two threads, but decided to keep them together due to them being fairly closely linked. If it is deemed that it would indeed be better split, then I have no qualms with that happening.
  • Similarly, I was going to wait until citadels were released before I posted this, but I decided that the thread would be too cluttered then. A thread about citadels will be made in due time, and it may or may not wait until or depend upon the conclusion of this thread.

Discussion[edit source]

Support separating ranks, support reducing the number of admins - As nominator. As much as I would like to evaluate current ranks, applying the grandfather clause will probably be the quicker and simpler way out (though maybe spending the time to ensure our ranks are top-notch would be a wise investment...?). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:02, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support separating ranks - Although I saw your answer above here and scanned again through the proposal, I saw nothing saying remove amount of wikian admins. Or did you mean for the clan chat? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:08, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is for the clan chat rank of "admin", not the on-wiki synonym for sysops. Its also mentioned in the second section with the clan cape/motif note. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:13, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
I see. I still support it, but for now (as I'm not often in the wiki's clan chat) I'm Neutral for the splitting of admins. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:15, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I would definitely strong support separating ranks and reducing the number of admins, but seeing how Jagex will not allow me to be in the RSW clan, I'll keep this as a comment. I am experienced in the realms of clans as well as leading them, (and more recently adminship) therefore I will give my opinions.

Having too many chiefs in a clan is not good. I've been involved with several clans, all who were run quite differently than the other. Clans that have a huge hierarchy never work out for multiple reasons. People bicker of administrative decisions, people don't know what they're doing with all the power they have, others get power hungry and try to take over or get others kicked out, etc. Apparently some admins have been changing the clan motif design despite the outcome of the thread too? No, absolutely not. This position needs to be filled by mature individuals who know what they're doing within the clan chat.

When me and a friend formed our clan, we decided to have a democratic system with 3 leaders. One for recruiting, one to keep the threads, one to manage the community. The leader who was in charge of recruiting, who we trusted, decided to start a coup on me and the thread-keeping leader. He owned the friend chat (before clan chats), and kicked us both. He was new to clans and didn't understand how they worked, and thought that he was the supreme overlord, for whatever reason. He thought everyone would support him because he had a gold star. He had no idea how the politics within the clan worked (even though he insisted on it being democratic), and was voted to be kicked out. He was one of my best friends.

Point of the story is - you can put the most trustworthy person from wiki in a position of power in the clan chat and they will do it wrong. I've been involved on IRC and clans for years, and wiki more recently. They are completely different, you cannot moderate them the same way. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:18, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support giving admin to all ranks in cc - All people who have passed Rfr's have done so to be able to kick people when needed, but at the moment the can only kick guests. Although most people needing to be kicked would be unranked they should still be able to kick other non-ranks who need to be kicked. Also, I am Neutral on Separating rankings. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:26, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Actually sergeants can't kick at all, not even guests, unless I misclicked the wrong name at least 3 times in a row. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 12:31, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
Even more reason to upgrade the rank then. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:09, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Support all ranks receiving admin in CC - Per Sentra. Weak support for the "separation" system for RfAs and ranking. My main concern is that discussion might get swamped by users focusing on the CC instead of what the RfA is really for - usage of on-wiki tools. 222 talk 11:38, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support all ranks receiving admin in CC - Yay for sergents being able to do what they passed their rfrs for. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 12:31, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support all ranks receiving admin in CC, With one issue - I believe that the current Sargent should be given the admin kicking abilities in the cc. But that causes one problem that might come up. Me, someone who barely has much to do with the physical wiki, will look the same as a Synops. What if i come into the cc looking for wiki help, there is no way to distinguish whether or not I can actually help them at all. I'm also Neutral on the separating of rfa, as I have never followed them much and don't know enough. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png

Support some stuff - I'm just gonna give my take on it. I support separating rfas. I don't think we should remove ranks/de-op everyone, but rather ask them if they want to keep it, and I think we should have them go through some process just to talk about it. Because truth is WE HAVE WAY TO MANY ADMINS IN CC. Let's utilize some of the other ranks. The problem with giving people who pass rfrs admin rank is that they can change a lot of stuff within the clan. This will make rfrs more brutal. I'm hoping that with the clan citadel update we might see some additional changes to chat interface (allowing sarg to kick guests), maybe allowing admins to kick ranks without removing their ranks (allowing them to come back later I guess). But I guess my overall point is that we definitely need to tone down the number of admins we have. I mean, if everyone who has the rank is using it (and not abusing it-and changing the cape), then they should keep it, and that's fine. But the truth is that's not the case. HaloTalk 13:13, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add. I strong oppose just ranking everyone up to admin as well. (I didn't make that clear). HaloTalk 13:10, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
See below. HaloTalk 01:10, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose changing ranks - I cannot express how much trouble getting more people who can change the motifs, keywords, etc. of the clan if we put all non-recruits as admins. I do want to see less ranks in general, but we shouldn't put all ranks on a level where someone can't tell the difference between someone who can delete a page or change an interface page (MediaWiki NS) to someone who only has tools in the clan. I also want to remove some ranks due to behaviour in the past and still to this day (a bone I have to pick with later).

I do not accept this notion of ranking in any way. However, I do support the separation of an RfA from the IRC and CC/FC and the inclusion of it if the nominee so chooses. I don't care what kind of tiers Jagex splits the Admin rank to as long as everything stays the same. Should we adhere to this "everyone is admin" doctrine, do not rank up existing non-admins unless proven otherwise. Such as actions seen by users like Qwert et al. on using the ban user in the Friends Chat just to test it out (had not kicked any users out, but still should have avoided doing such). Grandfather clause does seem good and bad, maybe if the user wishes to keep the rank or just remove it altogether should the admin decide. Also, why keep bureaucrats as Deputy Owners if we put admins and trusted ranks at the same level? No. Do something, but not this admin is everyone and everyone is admin ordeal. Ryan PM 07:47, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

If you would like, you can not put me up to admin if this is passed. That seems like your goal, and my goal to fix the cc is far more important than personally being ranked any higher than I am now. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png
Don't ever summarize my opinion or goals without citing the whole thing as that is entirely out of context. It's just one of a few examples I have when I said et al. (and others). On that same note, how do you even know if it is you I am talking about? There have been other users at one time or another that use the prefix of "Qwerty" to combat the perceived Mookies.
I don't see any need to get all non-recruits the same rank where you can change the rank of another user in the chat to anything below you or how a non-sysop can change the motifs et al. Remember, I had passed an RfR in April of 2009 before I became an sysop in April 2011. Also, leave a timestamp when you edit (use four ~~~~).
If there is any goal, it is to prevent ANY non-sysop from obtaining the admin rank in the clan chat through consensus. This is not elitism, it is limiting the amount of damage people can cause to the chat. Also, I don't see how making any rank changes will affect a thing when there are already two or more admins in the chat at any given time of the day. That being said, your goal is no different from mine when you don't look at RfA's and I'm in the chat quite a bit of the time and it's to help if asked with matters on the wiki (as well as being in the IRC often). Ryan PM 14:01, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. I just dont see why you have this opinion that all synops can be trusted over a rfr in the cc. It was an admin who changed the cape, remember. In the chat rfr should be trusted just as much, if not more than admins. That being said, both groups have a separate purpose. One to help with wiki related information, and the other to be more of a leader. Our goals are the same here, but there is no reason to not give more kicking power. And ability that you, and I, and many others have rightfully earned under the old system. Why should it be so different now? Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 14:39, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Neither am I, and I do agree that the system for kicking is flawed. I would support non-recruits to gain a rank that can do as you say. The only hitch is Jagex's rank abilities and how they break up the admin ranking next week. Depending on how they do that, I may support non-recruits to get one of the admin tiers if there is enough distinction between who has rights on the wiki and who is trusted in the chat. As for RfA/RfR/RfO, there are times I actually don't trust some of the other sysops, whoever they are, in the CC. This is because of the changing of the colours, keywords, and/or that 80 character subtitle in clan-home (This: The RuneScape Wiki - Skills, quests, guides, items, monsters, and more) over the past couple of months. Since this process takes at least a week, I'll see what happens come Clan Citadels before I change my opinion. Ryan PM 15:44, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
We should trust people who have passed an rfr more than sysops? ARE YOU HIGH? Sysops pass rfas because they are considered by the community to be competent and trustworthy in many areas. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that if I were to create a new account, and just edit normal, be in the chat and stuff, assuming rfrs were open, I could pass one 1 month after joining the wiki. And then I should be given a rank higher than sysops? Seriously...what are you smoking? HaloTalk 01:32, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I moved this thread to the Yew Grove but also left it in the Clan Chat category, because this also involves IRC, which is unrelated to the FC/CC. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:13, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Support separating - To be honest, I always found it stupid that sysops are automatically ranked on the cc. Yes, sysops are trustable, but they aren't necessarily familiar with the environment of the cc. I support changing all ranks to admins per Sentra. bad_fetustalk 14:22, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I should point out that upping all non-recruits to admins and reducing the number of admins are not mutually exclusive events - though personally I don't agree with just upping all of them instantly without some sort of discussion on them individually. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:20, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

this proposal is rly long and i think it look good. Ilikewiki 22:22, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (2)[edit source]

Comment - Real Mad 20:10, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support complete overhaul - The only real reason that the various ranks are still linked together is that it has always been done this way, which is a terrible reason in and of itself for doing something. Other people are probably going to/have already dodged around the issue but I think it's the case that there are some admins who are great at maintaining the order on a wiki and not so great at maintaining order in a live chat medium, though of course I won't mention any names. On the other hand there are people like me who have very little to do with the wiki and its running directly but have plenty of time for the game cc and the wiki IRC channel and who would be interested in smoothing the running of both. So firstly I support splitting requests.

Next up are the clan chat ranks. At the moment, the clan system seems to require anyone to have at least admin rank to actually be of any use. Seems to me as if all users trusted with power in the clan need to be elevated to admin level if they are actually to be of any use. Therefore, I support all admin ranks in the wiki clan.

Following on from this, if there hasn't already been someone, I think someone will soon say that having so many people with admin power is probably too many. I agree! Therefore I support re-requesting for current admins who have their clan power by default rather than because they were assessed on it directly (as Gaz says, an rfa typically only concerns wiki actions). Gaz has acknowledged that this measure could prove unpopular but I suspect that the most vociferous opposition will come from the admins who would have to jump through a few more hoops to keep their bronze key. To this I say: What's the worry? Current admins whom the community deems to be able to do a good job at keeping order in the clan chat have nothing to worry about because they will pass easily. Admins the community does not agree should be trusted with the key opposing this measure are more or less openly trying to retain it as a status symbol. I hope I will find widespread agreement that this is not the best mindset to be dishing out ranks in.

Summary: there is no prima facie reason to keep other ranks linked to wiki admin status, and they should be decoupled; current wiki admins who have ranks through this old procedure should have them re-examined. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 18:32, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- you want the sysops to have to go through a procedure to keep their current ranks, while the sergeants become admins with no discussion whatsoever? I don't see how that possibly could be a good idea. Taking a look at RS:RANKED, we have about four times as many sysops as we do triple bananas. Think back to the times that people have misused their tools in the clan chat; almost every time it has either been a sergeant or a lieutenant (you all know who you are). There is a reason that sysops tend to be better-behaved in the clan chat than sergeants. They have more to lose by acting out, and they have gone through an exhaustive process to see whether or not they can be trusted. Most of the time, that trust is universal and extends beyond what happens strictly on-site. RfRs, on the other hand, are much more informal, shorter, and require much less trust. While it is true that the sysops were never evaluated on their abilities in the clan chat, think of the tools that come with adminship in the chat. Changing the motto, name and colours, modifying user rights, and permanently blocking people. I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot more like what a sysop does than what a sergeant does. I don't trust some of the sergeants to be able to handle that new responsibility, especially without a prior evaluation. It just doesn't add up.
Hopefully in a few days the ranks will be overhauled and the sergeants will be able to kick. I am all for removing some sysops' clan chat ranks (and maybe requests are the best way to do that), but it's laughable to expect the sergeants to be upped to administrators with zero discussion on the individual. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? ʞooɔ 21:51, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If the sergeants get the admin rank in the cc, I believe they should be reevaluated as well. A RFR is to determine if the user can make use of the kicking power in the fc, and because of this there wasn't very much to comment on other than "good guy", "I trust him", and "He's in a good time zone when there is no other ranks on", but if they get the admin rank they have the ability to make changes to more than just who is in the cc, with every kick being posted in the chat. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:19, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can't we reserve judgment until after the citadel update comes out so we can be more clear in deciding what we need and how to do it? --LiquidTalk 04:04, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If lieutenants and sergeants are unable to kick but are supposed to be able to, then it should be fixed soon, right? If so, why not reduce all admins (except a select few) to lieutenants or sergeants to maintain their kicking abilities and avoid the motif-changing problem?  Tien  01:55, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

If I've learnt anything about Jagex in the past year its to not expect them to fix something that is obviously broken if fixing it isn't going to lead to a direct increase in their profits, instead expect some half-assed update. But that's by the by - we shouldn't expect anything from Jagex until it happens. Note that some of these issues have been present since the release of the camp in April with no change or word of change.
Sergeants/lieutenants can only kick guests from the clan chat, not actual members of the clan (i.e. the majority of people who chill in the clan chat). If any one of those people needs a time out, there is no way to temporarily remove them from the chat - they must be fully removed from the clan, which requires the admin rank (or higher). I have hoped that this would be changed - users can temporarily leave the chat while still being in the clan now - but of course the above statement still applies.
I personally have not had any cases where I have actually needed to remove someone from the clan for disruptive behaviour etc, guest or clanmate - though I have removed a few, when I do a periodic sweep of clanmates, due to blatantly inappropriate names, per RS rules (names which are rightly caught by the censor when turned on, names which are obviously attempting to evade the filter, etc). I can't speak for other admins though. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 03:26, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Separate adminship from CC rank/IRC Op. While admins are trusted, ranks in the CC and op on the IRC are very different in their rolls and this seems like a smart move. ajr 13:58, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see why we should really, admins are trustworthy people, and admins are even given chatmod status on [[Special:Chat]] by default, so why shouldn't they also be given op status on the IRC channel? They're both live chats. In many ways monitoring an IRC channel is even much simpler than monitoring an entire wiki. On the subject of the CC, then it's the same thing, as it's also mainly a live chat. If things have been working fine up to now, why would we change them? I've been in the IRC channel for a long time and I've seen no issues with the system that is currently worked with. --Callofduty4 14:06, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support giving all ranks admin and seperating sysop and ranks - Rfrs are done for a reason. Theres quite a few people in the Clan who went through RfRs to get their ranks, are are more deserving of them than many sysops who don't know how to use theirs properly, but are left unable to kick because of this sergeant glitch/rule. I also feel that several of our admins are not qualified as admins and should be re-evaluated.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scimitar77 (talk). --22:42, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

If that is how you feel about some admins are not qualified, please put some substance behind it and start some de-ranking procedures instead of just throwing out generalizations 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 01:09, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Atlandy here. Provide examples of sysops that "don't know how to use [clan rank/tools] properly". The problem is that rfrs were done when the only tool they had was kicking. An admin can change any number of things, remove people from the clan, rank up others. There is a lot more responsibility, and therefore it needs an equal amount of discussion before taking place. HaloTalk 01:28, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've given this some thought and talked it over with a few people. We'll see what Tuesday brings, but for now this is what I think: People who are sergeants should not receive the administrator rank. Rfrs are a very easy process to pass when they are open (even if that is rarely), and there are several people who I would not trust with the tools that are given to administrators. If any of these people are ranked up to administrator, then I believe selective active sysops should in turn be ranked up to deputy owners, to undo any damage that someone with the administrator rank might cause. The lack of ranks below admin being unable to kick is obviously a glitch for anyone with admin+ who can see the setting being on sergeants. This should be fixed Tuesday. We have admins in the chat 24/7 as far I have seen, and I'm playing like 16+ hours a day right now. This means there is always an admin in the chat whenever on the rare occasion someone needs to be kicked, which means we are not lacking. That means to me that there is no reason to rank up other people. I am indifferent in separating wiki/cc/irc tools. I think that all people who currently have these tools should be left alone unless someone has a problem with them, in which case a discussion can be made about that case. But I would not support forcing everyone to have a discussion about them and especially not support removing the ranks temporarily while we have any of the said discussions. HaloTalk 01:23, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is starting to seem more and more like a bias war between the current Admins who want to keep their power, and the current Sargents who want the power they had originally earned. I was thinking about the idea of starting from scratch with all ranks. Re-running rfr for every member that has held a rank, whatever that rank previously was. Now I know that most people with any power at all will say no way! But we need to think of what is best for the cc, not our own goals. We won't be here forever, but the clan chat will. And lets be honest. Isn't that what the cc really needs? A reset? It would fix the problems of inactive ranks, and it would fix the problem we have now. Time to think of our wiki, not our own personal egos. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 03:10, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the cc currently. It's not some "personal ego" that makes me want to keep my rank. It's the fact that I'm active, have a long history of not abusing tools, have lots of knowledege of the game, etc. Rerunning all rfrs is gonna be a long process of bureaucracy that we don't really need to go through. I don't think the cc needs a reset, and I think that's the dumbest idea for the cc really. It will leave a lot of people confused and looking for direction. So if you really care about the cc as you have said. I'd suggest you give this a bit more thought. Also...who said anything about inactive ranks? That's no big deal considering we can rank 500 people and we aren't even close to that number. HaloTalk 03:18, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support for sysops needing a RfR for a rank - I've seen some administrators take sides in arguments in the clan chat sometimes, and therefore misuse their powers by kicking one person instead of both involved. I have no evidence of this happening, since I couldn't foresee this thread coming along, although I can promise you, some examples lie in people such as Christine, and how she ALWAYS kicked me when I was involved in an argument, and never the other person, half the time when I didn't even cause it.

As for the other aspects of this thread involving the triple bananas, I remain Neutral. This is due to the fact that, although I believe that triple bananas and the new sysop rfrs should remain equal, I wouldn't really be able to advise on what happens to the current triple bananas, whether they need a resit or not.

I also throw in a Strong support for forcing all current Sysops to take a rfr to keep or remove their rank, this is as my above example which includes Christine. They became a sysop because they did great work on the wiki, helped to anti-vandal, etc, etc, etc. NOT because they should be considered a good candidate for keeping the clan chat a clean place, it was NEVER considered in ANYONE's rfas to whether or not it would be suitable for them to have a rank in the cc.

Might I also suggest that the RfRs remain permanently open, since I would expect the numbers of ranks to dwindle with the above paragraphs, if they pass. Although I do agree with a few other people, they need to be taken more seriously, maybe at a RfA level. No more "Oh i trust this guy" crap, you need good solid reasoning for why. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 16:27, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

This is cute because nevermind the fact that I kicked you maybe a total of 5 times ever, but they were always for you cussing up a storm and it pretty much never involved anyone other than yourself, which is the exact reason why you were kicked - because it was unprovoked and you were just bitching about not getting a drop or something like that and generally making the cc an unpleasant place. So please, if you want me off your back then stop complaining about me, because the last time I even spoke to you was at the least 8 months ago. Christine 00:11, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
So, just offering my help to someone, to have people like Mess Effect throw down a flame remark at me... The SECOND I opened my mouth to defend myself, you kicked me for that... How about that time when your BFF, Harle, was having a go at me too? Oh, I remember how that ended, just me getting kicked again. Oh, I also forgot, how about that time when you actually randomly had a go at flaming me, "Oh, I'm glad I listened to the cc last night and gave randoms the herb effigies instead of you." You said that for no reason whatsoever, but to try and cause a fight, all I said in response was: "Are you so intent on trolling me Christine?"... After that statement, I was kicked. Quite frankly, the only reason we've not spoke in the last 8 months is because you stopped playing, and you might find that everyone else would believe that my 'Behaviour' has changed for the better. Don't come on here, and lie to me and everyone else Christine, regardless of whether or not this proposal goes through. I hope you get deranked. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 00:39, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I know for a fact you were never kicked for offering to help anyone by me. Again, I only kicked you when your attitude was plaguing the cc, and at least once was when someone PMed me and asked why I hadn't yet kicked you for your behaviour. This thread for sure isn't a "let's throw everyone we dislike under the bus" thread so yeah, after 8 months of not even interacting with me, why am I the *first* thing that pops into your head? I haven't "abused" my rank in almost a year so why are you still so fixated on me? Really, get over it. Christine 00:56, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose all One solid fact is that the wiki cc represents the wiki. IMO we have been getting too far away from that with the cc becoming something else nd having almost no relation to the wiki except that we all use it. That is not enough. It should be clear in the cc that ranks are the wikis trusted to help more with what is needed. And so deranking sysops would have the opposite effect. If people do not like this, they are of course entirely free to form a cc that is not related to the wiki at all what so ever. But a wiki cc should represent the wiki.--Degenret01 14:02, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment/Bit of a new idea/Support Some - Earlier today, I went on RuneScape and visited the new Clan Citadel. They are, quite plainly, completely dependent on high-leveled administration. All of the higher leveled administrative actions, such as building hotspots and editing the battlefield are limited to people of a certain rank. Recruits, as make up almost all of the clan, have extremely little to no say in what happens to the citadel at all. Honestly, many of the people in the clan aren't that active on the wiki, or at least don't have a rank of adminship. However, these people are some of the most active in the clan, and will be most interested in helping out with it. I whole-heatedly agree with the idea of separating clan ranks from wiki ranks. If the idea of putting wiki admins as high ranking in the clan was proposed to put trusted people in positions of power, I propose that we come up with a system entirely separate form the traditional system to find admins and etc. for the wiki. We could have the same kind of thing, with nominations and community consensus which will make it possible to put people who will matter in the clan and help it grow well. Bureaucrats are ranked as the second highest rank, and I personally have seen no bureaucrats actively playing RuneScape or helping out with the clan. Also, after talking with others in the clan on RuneScape, feel that they have similar feelings. Pretty much what I'm proposing is mostly or totally separating clan ranks from wiki administrative status and making it possible for the countless devoted recruits to have a say in what happens with the clan citadels, especially designing the battlefield and starting battles. If necessary, I will start a new page aimed directly at this issue, but I feel that this is a good place to start this idea. Thanks for reading and I hope you consider. Milestone cape (50).pngAmeobea10Talk Contribs #Virtus mask.png 16:52, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Power should remain with select people chosen for the task. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 19:34, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
I don't spoil anything. ʞooɔ 21:54, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
OK then. Another idea is to have a certain page or section of the wiki where proposals can be made and voted on by the community as to what can be changed with the Citadel and what should be upgraded next etc. Seeing as this clan is run by a community, one person should not have the power to change it all and only that one person have that power. So, everything should be voted on by the community before being acted on. Milestone cape (50).pngAmeobea10Talk Contribs #Virtus mask.png 21:28, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think proposals being made is enough. The leaders were put in place because they are trusted. Voting will take too long and be overly bureaucratic, which is something to avoid. But suggestions are good. HaloTalk 14:10, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
As Halo said, I am sure that myself and the other admins will happily take suggestions and discuss them with the clan and amongst ourselves and implement what seems good for the citadel. While it could be nice to have a page on the wiki about it, I think applying the KISS principle would be more beneficial. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:48, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying everything has to be voted on, but if there is something that wants to be done, there should be a place to put that request. Milestone cape (50).pngAmeobea10Talk Contribs #Virtus mask.png 17:35, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Partial agree - The clan's current system works well enough to the point that I don't believe many changes are in order. With the arrival of clan citadels, there are many new options available to us. We should use the voting systems available there to the fullest in order to make sure the citadel fits the interests of the entire group. The higher ranks have my trust in handling clan matters without a great amount of public input because they've done a swell job with things like the clan cloak and chat. However, care should be taken to ensure that the ranks in control of the citadel make important and aesthetic decisions based on the votes of our clan members. Additionally, I think there is a space in the clan to use the corporal rank, between recruit and sergeant. As it stands, any player of Runescape can become a recruit. The rank system is fine as it is with the exception that loyal, contributing members are not distinguished from the rest of the recruits. I propose that the corporal rank is given to members who contribute by consistently gathering resources for the citadel, attending events, and using the clan chat. This corporal rank might have a use in the clan citadel (for example, the power to design battlefields) or could just exist to give recognition with no powers granted. --Andros Yorga 18:36, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

That supports the idea of having ranks as a status symbol. I don't believe that is something that we want to start happening any more than it already is. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 00:26, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral on IRC changes, oppose any changes to sysop ranks in CC - I really don't use the IRC very often so I'm indifferent, but as for the CC, this seems pretty ridiculous. As per Degen, the cc represents the wiki, and sysops are trusted. All this extra mumbo jumbo about making sysops go through a separate request process just to get a rank is ridiculous. Andrew talk 19:16, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (3)[edit source]

Comment - I've been thinking about this for a while. Right now only a few (active) people can invite. There have been tons of times when people have wanted to join and I've been the only person on who has the invite power (who is paying attention). There are a few admins and other ranks who are on, but simply don't talk/have their chat on or whatever. I'm going back to school in a few weeks, which means I'm not going to be playing 12-16 hours a day. I'm therefore adding that we should give out the corporal rank to people without having to go through rfr or anything. Just people in the chat who are active, constructive, and trusted. They don't have to edit or anything. But basically just give this rank to people who are around, so they can invite, and we don't have the complications of allowing recruits to invite, since currently anyone can come into the chat and ask to join, and it'll happen if there is someone available. Feel free to chew me up about AEAE and the like now. HaloTalk 20:22, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

The Recruiter permission can be given to any clan member of any rank. I would support giving this to some active Recruits. Dtm142 03:56, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
It is given by rank, not by person anymore. And giving it to every recruit has potential for abuse. Not likely it would be abused, but it could be a serious mess to clean up, and there's no way to know if it would be abused, until it happened. That's why I'm proposing this. HaloTalk 17:28, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I support the idea of opening rfrs, but only if it were to be done fast, and we stress to have only the "good" people apply for it to save time and aggravation. Firemaking cape.pngQwert Yuiop8 talk Firemaking-icon.png 20:54, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support opening RfRs - Per Halo, I've been online many times when new players want to join and there is either no one of the sufficient rank online, or no one wants to abandon what they're doing to invite. I've even had to invite people myself by being temporarily given permission because all other ranked users were unavailable. Seeing as permission can no longer be given to individual members, I also support Qwert's idea of opening requests quickly, and just having people who will actually use it responsibly and deserve it apply. I can't really give any opinion on the IRC changes as I rarely use it, so I'm neutral on that, but I've been a resident of the FC and CC for many months now, and this problem has been going on for quite some time. Ronan Talk 11:55, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion continues on another section. 222 talk 07:03, August 6, 2011 (UTC)