Forum:Shorten RfCM Times

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Shorten RfCM Times
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 August 2011 by Haloolah123.

In Forum:Request for ChatMod, the RfCM process was created. In the discussion, it was stipulated that two weeks would be the running time for an RfCM. However, for such a minor thing, two weeks is really a bit long. I am proposing that we shorten the time to one week, effective for future RfCM's, and effective retroactively on any open RfCM's when this thread closes.

Other minor processes, such as requesting a rank on the CC or featuring an image, only take one week of discussion before they are closed. In fact, it is only the major things (RfA and RfB) that have a mandatory two week minimum.

Another reason is practical. There are now frequently no sysops in the chat, and I've been perturbed several times from the comfort of the IRC to go and take care of something in the chat. By shortening the RfCM time, we will allow trusted users to moderate the channel quicker. --LiquidTalk 18:03, August 23, 2011 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:03, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - 2 weeks is too long. ɳex undique 18:06, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Not sure why it was decided on two weeks in the first place. Ronan Talk 18:28, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - You can usually tell if somebody's a good chatmod or not within a couple of days. No point dragging it out What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 18:33, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I was just thinking this. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:34, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - I'm asking for permission to close this in three days should no one come up with a good reason against shortening the time or against the early closure. That way, we could get some of the current users in the RfCM process the chat moderator tools quicker. --LiquidTalk 18:53, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - I say just be bold and get her closed and sorted now... All I ever hear of in the IRC/CC is: We need an admin because X is doing Y and needs to be banned. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:55, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It would be nice if we could close the RfCM's quicker. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:05, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support, one week please. Two weeks is even more ridiculous that this system is. ajr 19:12, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support earlier closure of RfCMs and this thread - per nom JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:13, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Given the amount of support this has received, I'll close this in one and a half hours (which is 9 PM UTC) unless someone objects. --LiquidTalk 19:26, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Self-explanatory. Andrew talk 20:51, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - No one seems to object to shortening RfCM's to one week. This means that all active RfCM's will have their expiry times moved up by one week. --LiquidTalk 20:58, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Reopened - This was open for LESS THAN THREE HOURS. Not happening. Suppa chuppa Talk 00:18, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I strongly disagree with the notions presented above. When the system is first introduced, there may be a few users who seem to be excellent candidates for the new role. This may make the process seem unnecessarily lengthy. However, this will not be the case once things have gone on for some time. There will be several borderline or uncertain requests that will be made for chat moderator. One week should ONLY be used to make a decision in things that are absolutely clear-cut, i.e. only supports during the one week duration of the thread/request. Notice how RS:SNOW may only be applied for 1 week. There is a REASON that we have things open for longer than that. Many users are not on the wiki ever day. While I usually am, there are times when I miss a day or two at a stretch as happened during the last few days.

Leaving these requests open for only one week is not sufficient. I honestly can't believe that this was open for such a short time. Unacceptable. I'm not going to go as far as to remove the rights granted to the two users who passed their requests, but the other requests should remain open for two weeks unless this thread is closed as successful after one more week. Shame on all of you. Suppa chuppa Talk 00:18, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you Suppa... The chat NEEDED moderators ASAP... The 2 week timeframe was a pathetic amount of time to wait, when we have 10 or so incidents a day where chat users need to come to the CC/IRC and plead for 10 or so minutes for an admin to sort it out. Liquid was being bold, and knowing that the thread had so many clear-cut supports, decided to take some sort of action now, rather than later. The wiki has one week rules in plenty of other sectors such as RS:RFR and RS:FIMG. We needed these ranks right now and it was through common sense that we put this thread to use. We should NOT have to wait two weeks to get consensus for a user to have a kicking ability in a minor chat area of the wiki. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 00:29, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree for a different reason - it's just chatmod. Rollback has more damaging potential, as does custodian. Both of these, however, don't even require a vote. Two weeks for something so minor is overkill to the extreme. ajr 01:13, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rhys, that the chat needed moderators. I acknowledged that fact in my initial post. However, that will not be the case as time has passed. It will always only seem like the process is too long without any benefit at first, but it really is necessary to take the time to evaluate each candidate. If you look through the history of Yew Grove threads, there have been many, many threads which appeared to have an overwhelming amount of support/opposition in the first week, but after the short burst of one-sided comments, other comments began trickling in which caused the thread to switch directions. This is also very true for RfAs and other requests that are situated here on the wiki. It just seems absurd to me that we had this enormous wall of support on the previous thread which included the duration of the request, yet NO ONE bothered commenting on the "extreme" length of the requests. Kind of weird, huh? Also, throwing out random policies doesn't explain your point.
Ajr, while rollback may have the potential to do more damage to the wiki over a short period of time, chat moderators represent the wiki to new comers. Many of these people have a very limited knowledge, if any, of the workings of the wiki. In any case, it's really, really easy to revert any vandalism that someone with rollback does. The same cannot be said for those who may damage the face of the wiki. I'm not saying that anyone who undergoes a request has such underlying motives, I'm just saying that it is a possibility. So I wouldn't say that this is something so minor, really. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:42, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
1 week isn't really gonna make a difference over two weeks. Generally 80-90% of the commenting on RfAs happens in the first week. And the remaining part is not consensus changing the vast majority of the time. So unless you're saying we need two weeks to look up dirt on someone to convince everyone they're a terrible person, I fail to see how your argument makes sense. The "short-burst" you describe is generally over within a few hours, not a week. If there's so "many, many" of these threads, cite them or don't say that, because it's not factual. There are maybe total like 5-6 threads that I've ever seen that have gone like that. HaloTalk 11:19, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It's nice to know that no one seemed to of even considered the proposal that established the RfCM process. This is the kind of thing that should of been discusses then. This is just me saying to the community, think ahead. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:53, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I can see both the points of Ajr's and Rhys's as well as Suppa's arguments. Therefore I cannot really make up my mind on this issue. Personally, I think it's okay to close an RfCM after a weak should the consensus be over-obvious per RS:SNOW (a policy I had to read five times to fully understand). This time should be extended to AT LEAST two weeks if there aren't an obvious 95% supporters/opposers. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:58, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - 1 week is enough for these, if they need to be 2 weeks they can be extended, but 95% of the time 1 week is more than enough for these discussions. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - As per Fswe --Touhou FTW 10:58, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - After reading and considering Suppa's and Rhys' comments, I'd like to put forth some proposals:

Proposal A is Liquid's proposal - shorten times to 1 week full stop.

Proposal B: Close requests that have unanimous support/oppose after 1 week as per RS:SNOW, leave all others open for 2 weeks. To ensure this is kept up we could add in a "Review" date of 1 week.

Proposal C: Have all RfCMs that start up to and including 9 September 2011 last 1 week, all proposals thereafter last 2 weeks.

Proposal D: Proposal B with an alteration: If any reasoning that disrupts the unanimousity of the referral have been successfully addressed and countered then the referral is closed after 1 week, else 2 weeks.

I would support Proposal D and request Proposal C be put into immediate effect until after this thread has been closed properly What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:07, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

-->Way too complicated. HaloTalk 11:59, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer it if it just followed RS:C#Closure, and we didn't limit the date the discussion is closed after the week minimum. Smithing (talk | contribs) 21:16, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure - The whole purpose of the thread was to get the 5 or 6 RFCMs done and through so we could get active ranks in the chat. All of these RCFMs have been completed, and therefore the point of this thread is gone. There's no longer an issue with the 2 week nomination stage. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 03:21, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The time has been changed accordingly. HaloTalk 03:29, August 30, 2011 (UTC)