Forum:Removal of S:C CM Icons

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Removal of S:C CM Icons
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 April 2012 by TyA.

For those who frequent [[Special:Chat]], it is becoming apparent that the number of chatmods in the chat at one time can be a little daunting. There are times when those with the ability to kick users can equal or even outnumber those without the tool. Seeing as s:c is advertised on pretty much every page a casual reader or editor will see, it is easy to see how it attracts new editors or those who have questions about certain aspects of the wiki.

If we were to take a look at the stats generated by RSChatBot along with it's logs you can see (at time of writing) 6 of the 10 most active users in s:c are CM/Admin. This carries on with 10 out of 25 and 18 out of 55 respectively. Admittedly not all of those with the tools are active users of them, but the icon identifying them as having the tool remains.

Looking through some recent RfCM's, you can see that the point that there are around 12 active and capable CMs that are in the chat most of the time. If you were a new editor, unaware of how we view editors would you not be slightly off put if you saw that 6 out of 14 users (the ratio at time of writing) had a star next to their name?

A possible solution to this perceived problem is to remove the icons denoting a CM/Admin. It removes the possibility of frightening off a new editor, however slim it may be. If necessary we can link to the list of CMs in the page header, although I often wonder about how many people actually click those links. This could be viewed as an extension to the various hilite discussions, although those forums often had a different motive behind their suggestion.


Neutral - Whilst this may go towards fixing the problem outlined the chatmod icon may hold some kind of 'look here for help' attribute. Having said that most, if not all users of s:c have been welcomed at some point so have that to fall back on should they need to. cqm talk 00:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Don't care - I never realized that the prayer icon next to my name was supposed to signify something important anyways, and I'm probably not the one to go to for help with Special:Chat related topics. (Though I don't like the current icon... the former gold star or perhaps the former prayer icon look much better.) --LiquidTalk 00:15, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - We had a similar discussion before about IRC ops, but I really don't want to dig through and find it when I don't remember the name/closing time. Basically what I think is this: It's really really lame when moderators hide amongst normal users in synchronous communication. I can't stress how stupid and immature it looks to watch someone try and backseat moderate without an op/star/whatever, then go and op themselves to move in for the kill (a kick). Though that wouldn't have to happen in S:C, my thoughts still carry over at just how sneaky and shadey it looks. I've not seen anyone complain at the high amount of chat mods - sure people mention it but it really doesn't stop them from vandalizing or talking normally. Besides, they only know what the stars mean if they ask usually. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:20, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

I have a good memory. Forum:Automatically op our IRC channel operators You're welcome. --LiquidTalk 01:33, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it's a coincidence that I was the first one to comment on both threads (besides the nominator) and it's even more of a coincidence that I said "Don't care" to both of them. --LiquidTalk 01:33, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
( •_•)
I don't think that's a coincidence... I see a conspiracy here... You're trying to make everyone think you don't care, but then, BOOM! you strike and we're all helpless. I'M NOT FALLING FOR THAT, MISTER! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:20, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I don't really think that editors should act any differently because they know there's moderators around or not. It doesn't actually help editors to know if someone is a moderator, as the only extra ability chat moderators have is the ability to assign and remove the banned from chat "right". The "looking for help" argument shouldn't be applied, as having the prayer icon next to your name doesn't necessarily mean you'll know the answer to a question; or that other editors lack the prayer icon won't.

Because of RS:SOW, there's no reason that an editor should be treated differently because they have or don't have a flashy prayer icon next to their name, yet I'm sure a fair number of "newbies" see the stars as a rank (which they aren't), rather than the single purpose tool the icon denotes. There's no reason an editor should act differently around moderators than without them, and thus, the removal of the prayer icon would serve to remind users that even chat moderators and administrators have the same say in a chat (yeah, they can kick, but that's just a tool for keeping the chat managed, not a rank). Hofmic Talk 07:38, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Supportish - Don't REALLY care a lot, but per Hofmic. Well stated. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:28, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I think it's nice to have a one glance look to see who is a chat mod. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:33, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Because I was asked to elaborate in Chat, I'm going to explain my position more. In RuneScape, I am part of a friend chat where just about everyone is a general, because we've all made it to the point that we've become trusted at that level. However, newer users still join the friend chat, and yet oddly enough that doesn't affect the atmosphere because it gives the illusion that "Oh look, they have authority in the channel, but they're still having fun!" That is the experience I have from the game when it comes to having many mods in a chat. If anything, it makes things easier for them because it helps them know who they can ask for something that maybe the regular Joe wouldn't know about. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:47, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - RS:SOW, as linked by Hofmic, is pretty much the backbone to this proposal. If there is genuinely no difference in status between editors in the chat then why should there be a icon depicting a difference? Some of the more immature users of s:c seem to think when there is no obvious presence of moderator then they are free to do as they please.

I'd like the outcome of this forum to define whether "there are enough chatmods" is a valid reason to oppose a RfCM - whether it's a perceived problem or whether it is a reason some may feel unwelcome in s:c. Unfortunately the vast majority of those who use the chat and may feel what is suggested are new users and can have problems editing a page let alone finding their way here to voice their opinions, so chances are we'll have to make do. cqm talk 23:49, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

We've already nullified the "too many admins" argument for RfAs, I would assume this carries over to any other requests for additional rights as well. 222 talk 01:44, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not.... cqm talk 09:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
That argument only applies to RfAs, it does not extend to RfBs and RfCMs. From what I gather Cam wishes to use this thread to extend that to RfCMs What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Just randomly thought of this but wanted to throw it in here: Perhaps we should close requests like we do for Events Team, etc - lots of other wikis do it for their administrators/moderators. Just a thought. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:32, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
As in a system whereby requests can be closed and opened depending on our need? Ronan Talk 07:29, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
[[w:c:callofduty:COD:CHAT#Moderators|That's the system Cod wiki use]]. It could work. cqm talk 09:37, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
Yes Flay, rather than determining whether someone is worthy enough or not on their individual RFCM, we could make it fair-er for everyone. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 12:08, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
Very strong support for that. I'd considered it before, but I didn't think people would be interested. Ronan Talk 15:09, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
Do we draw the line at the number we have currently? cqm talk 23:12, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
We should wait to see if there is consensus for implementation for such a system before defining the specifics. Ronan Talk 07:23, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all and this. I would support reducing the size of the icons, currently they are massive, but then again, everything in S:C is full of massive paddings and margins already. 222 talk 01:44, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'd just like to point out that using RS:SOW for a reason is pretty silly considering we can't even get a thread passed to completely remove wiki hilites. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:08, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hilites are optional depending on whether you feel they're necessary. Chatmod icons are either there or not. Ignoring that, hilites are only really seen when going recent changes or wiki activity which isn't something everyone does. The chatmod icons are visible to anyone who uses s:c unless they use css to modify it. cqm talk 09:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Hilites are anywhere that links to an admin's userpage. So when on their userpage or looking at their signature if it's just text, it'll be hilited. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:08, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Cam means that admins can turn off their hilites, but chatmods can't turn off their icons. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:58, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
^ cqm talk 23:12, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't like the idea of removing the icons. I think if that happened then there may be more trouble in the chat, with potential troublemakers coming in and causing trouble, who may cease once they realise that the stars denote the authorities of the chat, may continue causing trouble even when they are called out on it as they may assume that the chatmod warning them isn't an actual chatmod but rather a backseat moderator. Also, as Tyler says, it may also help new players know who to ask for help, as really you can't get CM status without some knowledge of how the wiki works. Also, with regards to Cam's concern about the "too many admins" argument being extended, I would like to see it extended as somebody's abilities to use the tools should not be decided by how many have the tools in this case What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Are we allowed to take away the chat mod icons since in Wikia's Terms of Use, it states:

Not to intentionally block, remove, or otherwise obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface
— Terms of Use

Does that include chat, or is there something that I'm missing from this? Hair 23:30, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

That's largely irrelevant here. They wouldn't care about something so minor as this provided there was consensus from the community. Ronan Talk 08:43, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
editconflict That means you're not allowed to, for example, remove the userpage link in the topright corner of the screen, or the Special:Chat link in the sidebar. Icons like the chatmod icon are not things that are protected by the TOU. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:44, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Fergie. This isn't the right way to go about this issue. Ronan Talk 08:43, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It is useful to be able to poke a chatmoderator when they are not looking at the chat at the moment, (for example if they're busy playing runescape) and there is a spammer. If that happens it is useful to see who is chatmod, so you can poke the mods to kick the spammer when needed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:44, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - it is useful for new users to know who the moderators are, so they can appeal to them by name (which will ping quite a few of them) if there is a problem. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 14:35, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Chat moderator stars will not be removed from Special:Chat at this time. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:12, April 23, 2012 (UTC)