Forum:Split Sysops and CC Admin Ranks

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Split Sysops and CC Admin Ranks
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 25 December 2013 by Suppa chuppa.

Our clan chat ranking system treats users with adminship on the Wiki the same way it treats users who have adminship only within the clan chat, but given that there are ranks not currently in use, we can easily rectify the situation for the sake of clarity.

I propose that we keep all CC-only admins as Administrators (bronze plus-sign thing), and promote all Wiki admins to Organizers (silver plus-sign thing).

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:54, December 14, 2013 (UTC)


Support - Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:54, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Would be easier to distinguish who's who in the clan chat. I still want that coordinator rank Liquid. :( -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 18:40, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Shoo. --LiquidTalk 04:05, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. -- Megadog14Talk 20:15, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Something I've wondered about is what happens with regards to admins who were not grandfathered in and opted out of automatic admin-ing in the cc. Would they be eligible for the bronze star thing, or the silver star thing if this passes, or are they required to go through the RfCCA process as Haidro did?

Additonally, I was under the impression organiser was used to denote citadel admins or some other extra tool. Would this be moved to co-ordinator to remove any confusion over who has the citadel tools, or left in it's current state? cqm 20:48, 14 Dec 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

My preference would be to have any new wiki admins who want to be clan admins do an RfCCA, and then get the silver star. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:50, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
I think the RfA process itself is enough to determine whether or not someone can be trusted as a CC admin as well. There's more to being a wiki admin than a CC admin, and wiki adminship already includes moderating [[Special:Chat]]. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:05, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I was active when the clan chat and the rules you talked about in the first paragraph were established. Can you direct to me the appropriate thread(s)? Also, the organizer rank's original purpose is essentially defunct because we've established the layout of the citadel and have no plans to revise it in the foreseeable future. (Gaz can correct me if I'm wrong.) Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:05, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
Forum:Regarding adminship and ranks Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:15, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't around either Wink The thread Gaz linked seems to suggest (from the proposals) that CC rank should be something considered during an RfA or RfCCA so people can support/oppose it as they wish, rather than it being done on the fly post RfA. cqm 01:29, 15 Dec 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Just to clarify, the way I believe I originally intended it to be when I proposed the ranks thread (over 2 years ago though, so who knows) was:
  • Any sysop who opts for CCA/Op should have those requests evaluated as part of the RfA (though in practise it don't think its super strictly done - this also implies that CC admin/IRC op can be given even if the RfA is failed).
  • If the sysop does not opt for a CCA/Op at their RfA, they must run a RfCCA (on RfR)/RfOP (on the YG) if they later decide they do want it. This was done somewhat recently with Haidro, who did not want CCA on his RfA but later decided he did so ran an RfCCA.
Maybe a full 2-week RfCCA is a bit much to run by an existing sysop without CCA, but whatever. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:40, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Eh - Not sure I really see the need for it or benefit from it. Especially since the on-wiki way of identifying said users was removed awhile ago (not completely analogous but still - we don't want to distinguish between IP/autoconfirmed/rollback/custodian/admin/b'crat/[other non-bot groups] on-wiki but we do want to between RfA'd clan admins and RfCCA'd clan admins in-game?).

If this were to pass, I would remove citadel editing abilities from organisers, as the point was to limit the number who could do stuff in the citadel so it didn't get messed up. Also there's little point to citadel edit nowadays with the citadel completely maxed, and no updates due in the foreseeable future - the only thing that could be done is messing around with the aesthetics which could be debated endlessly. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:15, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I second Gareth that citadel editing is not needed (at least until Jagex updates it). As for the actual proposal, I don't really see a point in differentiating the CC-only administrators from the wiki administrators and CC administrators. Ever since the two were separated, every administrator in the CC is a clan chat administrator, some of whom happen to have wiki adminship on the side, with the exception of the previously grandfathered in wiki sysops. I can't really come up with a good reason for why clarity is needed, especially since there is really nothing that administrators actually need to do once they get to the administrator rank. The only slight benefit I could think of is that wiki administrators could directly promote candidates who have successfully ran a RfCCA instead of going through a higher rank, but that's a rare case. --LiquidTalk 04:05, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - From what I understand of the RFA process, potential admins can request the rank of CCA and then that is evaluated as a part of their RFA. Therefore I don't see a point in giving them a separate rank when their CC admin status is discussed separately. Also, what is the point of distinguishing the two in the CC? It's not like people come into the chat looking for a wiki admin (and even if they did, they would have no way of knowing which rank signifies what powers). BennieBoy (talk) 05:38, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Recently someone has been PMing me to do on-wiki administrator things, mostly because he is blocked. Still, he hasn't entered the CC and asked, opting to PM instead which is probably more logical. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:40, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no benefit to anyone by separating administrators in the clan chat based on being a system operator or not on the Wiki itself. BennieBoy made a good observation that no one would know outside of the clan chat as to what rank distinguishes between who is and isn't a sysop here. The only reason as to why one organizer exists is because early on, it helped to have someone who wasn't the owner or deputy owner around to help with goals and setting up the citadel. Going by the Clan Leader Forums, there won't be anything in the distant future for citadels other than "more fealty ranks, better ways of showing someone’s fealty/cap, XP rates of skill plots (e.g. 6-7 tier kiln)".

So outside of an icon change, it's not really something that should or needs to be changed. The only necessary ranks in reality are those for: Everyone, Events Team, Administrators (same for CC and SYSOP), Deputy Owners (passed by request of non-RFA conditions) and Owner. Relatively no one has ever even come into the CC looking for a system operator ever since before the CC when it was just the FC seven years ago as the amount of times is negligible and numbers in less than 100 times in seven years, even fewer since the CC was founded. This is like IRC and how we have Operators that are not system operators on the Wiki, but we don't differentiate between users.

Unless there is a purpose to give someone a different rank based on group rights on this wiki in relation to system operators, I am of the mindset that this a pointless change. On another note, we have our description for deputy owners out of date as we currently have non-bureaucrats as deputy owners. Ryan PM 06:18, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth syncing up that page and RuneScape:Clan Chat/Rank guide. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:40, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no point here. As far as I know, people who are admin on the wiki as well as in the CC have the same powers as those who are only CC admins. Why change an already fine system? We aren't running YouTube here. King Kolton9 (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Page King Kolton9 (Level: 1148)Talk to King Kolton9Edit Count King Kolton9Chat at IRCMy Pages My SandboxMy Contributions 22:51, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Lets move the CC from RS to Google+. That sounds like a good idea right? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:38, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
This just in: Google+ membership quadruples Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:00, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
Best not to check if people like it, and if we get enough complaints, blame it on trolls. That always works, rightKing Kolton9 (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Page King Kolton9 (Level: 1148)Talk to King Kolton9Edit Count King Kolton9Chat at IRCMy Pages My SandboxMy Contributions 21:47, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't see a big change happening by giving admins a fancier colour. At the same time, that is done in [[Special:Chat]] to distinguish admins from chatmods, so it could be OK. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

The only reason why we do that is because admins can kick chat moderators. Essentially this entire thread is "Do we want sysops to be capable of kicking admins?" What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 07:44, December 19, 2013 (UTC)
It also makes it easy to identify someone who can do something administratively on wiki for them. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:11, December 19, 2013 (UTC)
That would be a great reason if people actually went to the CC to look for an administrator. --LiquidTalk 01:45, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
I've had to do that a few times, when there's been no sysops in S:C and I've already been in game. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 01:51, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Thread has not been edited in a few days, and there is no consensus to implement these changes. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:19, December 25, 2013 (UTC)