Forum:Archive12

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Yew Grove archives from approximately: 4 October 2008 to 20 February 2009 This page is an archive from the old Yew Grove. It intended to preserve previous important discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To start a new discussion, please use the current Yew Grove.

Contents 1 .OGG readers, and what to do with Adventurers' Tales 1.1 OGG 1.2 Adventurers' Tales 2 The Yew Grove - Ground rules & censorship on the Wiki Guide to the Yew Grove 2.1 Guide to the Yew Grove 3 RS:IMP 3.1 Proposed policies 3.1.1 RS:DSA 3.1.2 RS:S 4 RfA Questions 5 RuneScape:Administrator requests 6 Animations 7 Requests 7.1 24 December 7.2 RE: 24 December 7.2.1 Deletion 7.2.2 200M in 4 Skills 8 Request to review Puremexican's use of admin tools 9 Blogging option for RS Wiki 9.1 Newspaper - random thought 10 RuneScape Records 11 Images Needing Transparency 12 Chat 13 Assume good faith policy (Requesting Revision) 14 Hilites 15 Protect site - policy? 15.1 Protectsite policy - Rough draft 15.1.1 Discussion 16 Time for an upgrade! 16.1 Updates 16.2 Discussion 16.3 Agreement 16.4 Conclusion 17 Abolish user of the month 17.1 New Proposal 17.2 Suggestion for UOTM Changes

.OGG readers, and what to do with Adventurers' Tales

As a wiki, we stride strive to become a good one. We already are, but there is one thing that we could defely use. As used by Wikipedia, having the ability to play .OGGs while a reader is reading an article could make the experience on this site better.

• Having trouble pronouncing something? An .OGG could be played to show the reader how to say it. (I would be willing to do this.)
• If anyone was willing to do such a thing, we could have narrations of articles.
• Plus some other stuff, which escapes my ming mind at the moment.

Someone in #Wikia a while back said that to get an .OGG player, all one would have to do is request a staff member to install it, and it should be pretty much as simple as that.

The OggHandler extension has been installed in RuneScape Wiki. The extension allows Ogg audio and video files to be played in wiki pages, using the same syntax as for image files.

• To embed an Ogg file, use:

[[Image:Dtmf0.ogg]]

which gives:

• To upload an Ogg file, just use the Special:Upload. It may seem weird that audio files are stored in the Image namespace. But soon (hopefully in MediaWiki 1.14 update), the Image namespace will be replaced with the File namespace. Wikipedia now has been updated to MediaWiki 1.14, and Wikia would be doing it sooner rather than later.   az ^talk   19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But on another note, do we need RuneScape:Adventurers' Tales anyone anymore? RSFF covers that now. If we deleted it (or whatever a verdict may turn out to be), it wouldn't really do any damage, as the actual content is in the respective users' userpages.

So yeah, discuss and stuff. Chiafriend12 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I should stop trying to type stuff when I'm so tired. :")... Chiafriend12 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OGG

Support Nice idea. But how do you convert media to .ogg? Theg721 ^chat I feel the power.

Support - I like the idea of having .ogg's for articles (definition). And you don't need to worry Chia, I wont let your ideas escape your "ming" (lulz). =) CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per myself. Chiafriend12 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I'd be willing to do it with my *cough* webcam sound recorder. However, this will take up lots of space (just like animations). Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol I can also use my dad's headphones. Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - It's a very good idea. Only difficulty is the large amount of articles, and we'd need to recreate oggs every time someone makes an edit. ----   Bigd56   ^{[talk] [highscores]} 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support One good thing about this is Firefox 3.1 will have built-in .ogg support. A lot of words from RS are pronounced a lot of different ways,it would be great to know the proper way. - TehKittyCat 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support per Chia. Also, if you want to pronounce RS words correctly, use the Postbags (they sometimes give pronunciations).  C Teng ^talk 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

comment Rather than changing everything to ogg, which would mean that to keep it up to date you'd need mayby 50 people who are expert at doing it, can pronounce all the words correctly and have little in teh way of an unintelligible accent changing it continually, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without break. Rather than that, why don't we have a page with all the hard to say/pronounce words on a certain page, which uses .ogg formatt, so that people can learn how to pronounce the words.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support I have a microphone by Logitech and I use it to talk on skype all the time. It has exceptional quality for what I paid for. Im willing to pronounce some words.Jmo , 08:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've been waiting for the wiki to start using .ogg files. I will be happy to record stuff but not narrate articles or pronounce words. Lol, I can't wait until we have all these American voices narrating articles. It'll be hilarious!!! And a solution to recreating oggs when someone makes an edit: we just post a date and it can be updated another time. So if people see it is old they can just read it themselves. Also, new sound files might have to go through some kind of authorisation process because I can imagine the sound files we'll get from some people.... Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support - Look how often articles are updated. Every edit that is made to a page the OGG will have to be rerecorded. If you want entire pages to be read aloud, have a download link somewhere for a program that reads the text that is there, not once was. I think only the hard to pronounce words should have sound. That way we just get OGG files for all the words that are hard to pronounce, and they never have to be changed. --— Enigma 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adventurers' Tales

Neutral - Adventurers' Tales are fan-fiction, and I feel that they should belong in RSFF. I would like to suggest that a note is given to the authors to move their content to RSFF, and we put a note on the page to say "We have moved to RuneScape Fan Fiction, please list your stories in RSFF."   az ^talk   12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Adventurers' Tales. The RSW and the RSFF Wiki are separate. There is no need for us to remove it.  C Teng ^talk 12:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We may indeed be seperate, but both are run by the same community. Chiafriend12 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are some people at the FF wiki who are not here, and people at the RS wiki that are not there. Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support discontinuation - Per myself. Not really deleting it, but maybe removing most of the content and replacing it with 'yadda yadda, this has been discontinued and stuff, please use the RuneScape Fan Fiction Wiki instead'. Chiafriend12 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per Chia. And it's "strive", not "stride". Stinkowing _{(WHAT'S IN IT?)}

Same community? How do you know that? Just because you and a few other RS-Wikians go on, doesn't mean everyone does. What would we do with the old ones? Merge them into the other wiki? We're separate wikis!  C Teng ^talk 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RSFF is part of the RSW community because nine out of ten users there (Heck, we don't even have ten active users XD) edit here also. And I meant "discontinuation" as in 'accepting no new submissions', or something. For the stuff already in the respective userpages, it would stay there, per RS:DEU. Lastly, I know both are separate wikis, but that definitely hasn't stopped our 'crats (two at least, I'm pretty sure) and others from trying to dump articles into another wiki. Go talk to them on that matter ;). Chiafriend12 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we even half to discontinue it. Sure, we can let RSFFWiki have it. That doesn't mean we can't accept submissions. What's wrong with that? And why would we direct other users to a different wiki?  C Teng ^talk 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Keeping

RSFF is for solely tales/fan fiction. the RSW is for All things runescape, including runescape tales. However, I think that Tales/stories should be created on the author/editor's page or subpage, otherwise we'd have to make a category for stories, so they didn't get mixed up with fact. Thanks.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Deleting

I checked the page and the first five "stories" are pretty much only a title, with no actual writing. Therefore, I agree (in a way) with Zilenserz in that users can write stories on their own sub-pages, but the general page should either be removed, or replaced with a message notifying users that the page is no longer active and that they can post stories on their own sub-pages. —Kazel01 (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

The Yew Grove - Ground rules & censorship on the Wiki Guide to the Yew Grove

OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove about other editors questioning the value of contributions, accusations of sockpuppeting, and polls about blocks, I think we need to lay down some ground rules. These will (if approved) be located at the top of this page under the "What this page should/should not..." section. So here goes...

• Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, [I find B****ing offensive] blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.
• Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
• Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
• Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.

the list is obviously not complete, feel free to add to it. Thanks, CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This can be summed up as be respectful and considerate of others. Keep the same mature, professional attitude you would have at work (or school for those of you who don't work.) This is a community of responsible, knowledgeable people who share the same interest of providing accurate information to those who desire it. While people may have disputes, it does not belong on this page. This page is for discussion of community events, something that affects nearly everyone in the community. However witty and cool somebody may feel by talking back on the internet, it's really not as impressive as the originator may think it is. If it doesn't help better the encyclopedia, don't put it on this page. I understand that there are many younger users on this wiki who might not share the same sense of respect and equality as others, but now is the perfect time to start learning. Being a "badass" in the real world won't get you anywhere, and it won't get you anywhere here either. It takes a lot less effort, time, and energy to just be helpful and do the right thing. If you have a personal issue with somebody, use the wiki's e-mail, keep it off the talk pages. This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems. But please, respect other people, it will help everybody in the end. 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems." - Did you mean "This will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems." or "This will keep others from flaming and stop even more problems."? Stinkowing _{(WHAT'S IN IT?)}

Heh, thanks stinko. It will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems. Meaning if it is kept personal between two people, nobody else will be tempted to add their two cents. 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why do people that have been sysopped get to swear? They act like they have every right in the world to and they own the Wiki. It really bothers me. Just because you have a position of authority in the Wiki community doesn't mean you should get to say offensive things like cuss. Jediadam4 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on this previous statement. The only two sysops who have commented on this are myself and stinko, and I found all of our comments to be clean. I will look again though. 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure I entirely understand your concern Jedi. If the policies are the same as the of the beginning of my hiatus then swearing can be used on the wiki provided it's not being used to direct an attack on another user. Generally most people don't swear every second line as it dosen't look very proffesional. But certainly provided you are keeping your comments neutral and constructive I really don't have a problem with "cuss". --Whiplash 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see: Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing. All I have to say to that is that this is NOT kindergarten. We had a debate on this awhile back and I rembember that the consencus of it was that swearing is allowed on the wiki provided it's not being directed at a user. As far as Im concerned the swearing thing should be removed. --Whiplash 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And to think this was supposed to solve problems... Anyway, I think RS:AGF should be added to the list. All too often people jump to the conclusion that someone is up to no good. bufar_(talk) 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a policy or two may inhibit discussion, RS:IAR in particular should be added.

Adding on to the rules on "wittiness", what we need to avoid is active moderating. One-line comments like "Xpkerpure, please use proper grammar" and "lolonoob, remember that RS:AEAE" aren't helping anyone and can turn the Yew Grove into a uncomfortable or even hostile environment. 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Whiplash on this. Swearing is part of daily life, and 99% of the time it is not directed at anybody. This is generally accepted as okay, as it is not intended to offend or upset anybody. If somebody takes offense to every "swear" or "curse/cuss word" thrown around, they're in for a lifetime of disappointment. Certain words carry with them a highly offensive meaning, and should not be used, imo, but for the most part, provided it isn't aimed at anybody, it is fine. 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the unregistered users comment above. Most behavioural policies on the wiki are not seriously enforced, perhaps with the exception of the user treatment policy. --Whiplash 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think we should keep the "no swearing" rule ONLY on the YG, because I can guarantee that nobody will have legitimate cause to "cuss" about a subject of discussion posted here. (If you wish to debate this, please provide an example where swearing would be acceptable in a communal discussion). CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, swearing should be prohibited/limited to talk pages and userpages only. I know of young kids who frequent this Wiki looking for information on RS and whatnot. Although "99% of swearing" is not directed at anybody, this gives the impression that swearing is cool and okay. We do not want to instill this perception that swearing is acceptable, especially among younger kids. I don't think swearing is offensive, but I flinch every time I see a swear word in this wiki, knowing that some kid might see it and start using it at school the next day. Imagine when the teacher asks "Where did you learn that word?" and the kid replies: "The RuneScape Wiki - the wiki for all things RuneScape." LOL.   az ^talk   07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point az, but at some time people need to come to the realization that we're not living a sheltered life, and the real world exists. I agree that swearing should not be allowed in articles, but on discussion pages such as this one, talk pages and such, certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable, imo. If the concern is about young children seeing "bad words" and using them the next day, then the Player Dictionary article needs to be deleted. In all honesty, television is far more vulgar than pretty much anything kids will see here. 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit conflict Karlis =P, here was my original message...
Azliq: I completely agree with you. How about limiting swearing to user talk pages and the player dictionary, because according to RS:DEU, we're not allowed to have swearing on user pages. Since this discussion is tipping over to a debate about the censorship on the RuneScape Wiki, I've changed the title to observe the views of others concerning the oppression of vulgar language amongst the younger people who may visit our Wiki.
Karlis: the player dictionary has a language warning at the top of the page. Now regarding your comparison between the Wiki and TV. Television censorship (where I live) is much harsher than the Wiki's, there are content warnings, ratings and restricted time periods when shows and movies can be shown. Although I do not want our Wiki to end up like this, I do propose some protection. Moving on... "...certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable..." I think that no swear word is acceptable, but some are tolerated more than others. The word "crap" would be more socially acceptable than "f***", right? CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonna reset this back to the left. I understand the difference in censorship based on countries, but I find some things trivial to censor. And yeah, I know about the language warning on the top of the page, but if a child is going to "learn curse words" from the wiki, a warning is not going to stop them. Now back to my opinions of trivial censorship. Words such as "damn", "hell" and "crap" are generally accepted by younger kids as borderline "bad words" yet are acceptable pretty much everywhere. I agree that certain four letter words are too far, but we need to have a more realistic stand.

OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove...

..work has been a pain in the a** this week...

...I have had a lot of sh** going on this week...

These all have "curse" words in them, by traditional standards, yet are not offensive. I want to know why something like this should be censored, when all that these words are doing are simply adding emotion to the sentence. Not that I am arguing that I display anything like this on my page, nor would I put it on anybody elses page, but I don't believe people should be shunned for it, or it should be looked down upon because the user is a little bit more mature than others. 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. earth_(t) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I agree with you on the point that some words should be acceptable. Now going back to what you said, I really don't see that adding emotion to one's opinions stated here in the Yew Grove is a necessity. I proposed these guidelines because I have observed experienced editors drop the "s" bomb in discussions and use it excessively. THAT sort of language is what I want to control in the YG. And BTW, "b****ing" is a verb. CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure "some" words may be acceptable, but which ones should be accepted? How do we decide which ones are acceptable, and which ones are not? I feel that since this Wiki is about RuneScape, I propose that we follow the censorship based on the RuneScape game itself, i.e. the Chat filter. Jagex had introduced the Chat filter to filter out profanities and swear words from the game because they knew who the game was catered to: for people of all ages; played by people from different origins (countries) and ethnicities. Being a Wiki dedicated to RuneScape, our audience/visitors will be the same people playing RuneScape. I wouldn't mind if swearing is allowed in a Wiki dedicated to "GTA: San Andreas" where the game itself is rated Mature (17+), but on RSWiki...? What I would like to see among editors (especially admins) is self-censorship: in Project pages (like this one), article talkpages, "edit summaries", etc. See this page: So What's Wrong with Cussing?   az ^talk   12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep a sense of professionalism on the wiki, so I do whatever I can to keep my language clean and civil. What people type on talk pages and user pages is their own thing. Let me try to summarize... On pages with community discussions or where the general public of the wiki is going to view, I agree that language should be kept clean. On userpages, actually maybe just user pages and subpages, we should be a little bit more lax. I disagree with people posting profanity on others' talk pages, so I guess just your own userpage, really. I stick with my initial post in this discussion, I feel it sums up well how I feel. Where that was more directed at overall attitude, it could apply to language as well. Be respectful and mindful of others. 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this discussion has turned into whether or not profanity is okay, and it has been drawn away from guidelines and overall "appropriate attitude" when discussing on the yew grove. Lets recap for those who don't feel like scrolling up, and highlight other areas that need to be discussed...

*Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.

• Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
• Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
• Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.

I will finish this when I get to work, time to go! 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me just provide some background information about the proposed additions.
...blonde jokes, racial slurs etc. This is based on the guidelines which many users of the official RuneScape Forums may be familiar about, this was taken from the Forum Code of Conduct.
...Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs. This is based on Wikipedia's dispute resolution and civility policies and the negotiation essay. Our Wiki is based on consensus, and it will only keep going is if we can make decisions peacefully without contributors getting angry. Sure, a debate is healthy and is what brings up brighter and more efficient ideas, but don't go overboard.
Use their talk page instead. OK, the main thinking behind this was the debate over a certain editor's recent indefinite block. I thought that an argument regarding an editor or the status of their account would be better suited to a user talk page, rather than the YG.
I agree with Az on the censoring of words according to RuneScape. CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Az. This wiki already is enforced according to most RuneScape rules, I can't really see why, with a few exceptions, this shouldn't be the case here. Now, my question is about euphemisms... For example, crud over crap, for instance. I don't see why these would be any problem, though I'm open to discussion on that. --Pikaandpi 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that language of an offensive nature should be removed because there is no reasonable cause to use it in the first place. When are we going to use the word "crud" when talking about our Wiki? CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 13:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to admit I'm not sure how to respond in terms to the first sectence, as it kinda renders what I was going to say obslete <_< Buto for example "I'm sick and tired with all this crap" could easily be replaced with "I'm sick and tired with all this crud." Not so much talking "about" the Wiki, but within the Wiki about, say, RuneScape itself or whats happening in the real world. --Pikaandpi 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Language of an offensive nature, yes. If you are offended by the word crap, it's time to grow up a little bit. 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When you put it that way... obviously the word is not offensive, "You're a piece of crap", "You're full of crap" can rub off as an attack. CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Karlis. But, "Crap" by definition is excrement and the act of defecating. See The Free Dictionary's first two definitions. The dictionary also mentions it as a "vulgar slang". Although I'm not offended by euphemism use of the word, the word itself is disgusting, and similar words may be used instead.—Azliq7 (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Lets just put it this way. RuneScape requires their users to be age 13 or over. We can follow similar guidelines. Children 13 years old are mature enough to deal with some words. From what it seems, there is going to be no way to settle this as non-offensive words can be used in an attack. I think we are going to have to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. If I see something like "All I got form my slayer mission was a bunch of crap" or "I didn't get a damn thing from barrows" I'm not going to take any action, as it would be rediculous. If it is an attack at another player, then obviously the circumstances are different. I really think we need to get off the topic of offensive language and more on the topic of offensive content. There is a huge difference between the two. 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Guide to the Yew Grove

OK, since the current discussion seems to be going nowhere, I have another proposal. Instead of having the "rules" section as stated above, I think we should have a link to a Yew Grove Guide essay. It would state the rules (remember, ESSAY, which means you don't have to follow them) and much more stuff, like how to make a proposal, giving feedback, etc. I'll start drafting. What do you think? CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a interesting idea, where would you put it on the wiki to make sure everyone who needs to view it can view it? --Rune ldr 88 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking probably at the top of this page... CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. The essay looks fine so far.  C Teng ^talk 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be no cursing at all for a few very simple reasons:

• We attempt to follow the same fifteen rules that Jagex established in game and rule number one is no swearing.
• RuneScape:User treatment policy states: If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities. The use of profanity, even if not directly used to berate someone else violates this policy in any argument.
• We are primarily an encyclopedia. I can't see any reason why even on the article talk pages someone would use cursing unless they have a limited vocabulary or are trying to be "edgy".
• RuneScape is skewed primarily towards children. Though this place is not a "shelter" as has been noted above, it is even less a place to be exposed to such things.
• Would you use epithets when talking to someone you just met or in front of a large crowd? This is essentially what it is like writing on the Internet and often people forget that there are other human beings on the other side. There is no chance that you can offend someone by not swearing but there is a chance that you could offend them by swearing so to me, the choice between the two is obvious.
• It's just basic common decency to curb the language.

--Diberville 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think that that'd help the newer people, or even oldish people who know their way around, but have never requested/voiced their opinion on the Yew Grove before...--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RS:IMP

What is the process to move a proposed policy into actual policy? My guess, "Consensus", as such I'm asking for a quick vote on the Image and Media Policy.

• Support - naturally since I am the one wanting to finalise this. ~kytti khat– 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Looks great, though I'm not sure about one item, that is videos not to be used in articles. We have many, many videos in articles, and I'm sure we don't want to be deleting them all. I support apart from that. Hurston 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The term 'video' seems unclear as of your posting, so along with other proposed policies these should be reviewed imo. ~kytti khat– 01:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Everything seems to be in order.--
  Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}
  18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Do project-related images include images used in the Yew Grove or in the Talk namespace (besides in signatures)? For example, if someone uploaded an image to show an example for a talk page, but the image isn't used anywhere else.  C Teng ^talk 12:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I do not see any problematic areas in the policy and the policy makes sense. - TehKittyCat^{Talk Wikian-Book} 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policies

There are other Proposed policies that need to be revisited, and some of them are really, really old.

• RS:IMP
• RS:DSA
• RS:RFAP
• RS:SCOPE

On another note, I'd like to "nominate" the Quest style guide written by Endasil to be included in our official Style guide. It needs some modifications, but I think it is well written and should be made "official".   az ^talk   03:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If Endasil's quest style guide is ready, why not go ahead and move it over to RS:QSG? ~kytti khat– 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've expanded the RuneScape:Quest style guide to include the layout for a quest page. Feel free to tinker with it.   az ^talk   17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAP needs to be deleted. It's almost completely wrong (anyone can participate in RfAs and there are no prerequisites that need to be fulfilled to be nominated), the page is still under construction and its creator has left the wiki. Speedy D it.--Diberville 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RS:DSA

This particular proposed policy seems to be nothing more than a specific instance of the ownership and bias section of the style guide. As such I believe it would be best to redirect RS:DSA to that section of the style guide, and possibly incorporate it into the style guide as opposed to having it as it's own policy. ~kytti khat– 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RS:DSA gives much more information than the small bullet point in the Ownership and bias section in the Style Guide. If we decide to delete the page, I think that we should give it its own subsection in the Style Guide.  C Teng ^talk 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree ~ ~kytti khat– 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with C Teng. 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I'm thinking maybe the subsection and the DSA policy should cross reference each other. Regardless I am not advocating the removal of any content of DSA, regardless of whether it stays in place or migrates. ~kytti khat– 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RS:S

I'd really like to see this one brought to life (along with RS:IMP) ~kytti khat– 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - I agree, that's why I undeleted it.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA Questions

I was taking a look at the Wikipedia RfAs and I noticed that all nominees are automatically asked three questions:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Users are then allowed to ask additional question, and then comes the commenting/supporting/opposing.

I just thought this might be a useful add-on to the RfAs as the community would be able to look at how sysops/b'crats would handle certain situations and how they have contributed to this wiki without having to go on just the comments/supports/opposes and the nomination to form their own opinion.

What do you all think? Andrew ^talk 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - First, I would want world piece, lol. I support this. In self-nominations, this should be part of a new mandate that is discussed and followed. As a person being nominated, candidates should be allowed to extend to the nomination and fill in this information in addition. Nice research soldier.

03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with that, Bonzii. :) Andrew ^talk 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Although I do believe that the questions asked for a request to be an admin should be a bit more rigorous (For example, one question that could be asked is "Are you capable of handling extra responsibility with the powers that may be given to you?"), I do believe adding these questions will be a great start in improving our requests for adminship.--Pkthis 21:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Those don't have to be the questions used, those were just the questions I copied and pasted from Wikipedia to use as an example.
Andrew ^talk 21:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good idea Buzz ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 08:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, if you have any suggestions for questions we could use then feel free to put them on the table. Andrew ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Great add-on to RFAs. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good idea. It would also put pressure on those people who join up the straight away request adminship. But it doesn't concern me because I'm already an Admeanie :P Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - As per Chicken. I've seen way too many people with barely 50 edits want to jump on the admin wagon, I on the other hand actually avoided it for awhile until I can't remember who pointed out ways it made sense for me. ~kytti khat– 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't it take like 3 people telling you it would be good for you? And not out of any "I told you so" but have you found it to be very helpful?--Degenret01 10:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think that'd be a good idea, although just reading those questions made me feel nervous. Many people think differently about what is a big achievement. I spend most of my time on the wiki either making signatures, userboxes, adding my contribution/formatting advice to discussions, or just immersing myself in wiki-formatting, so I can understand it better. So for me a huge achievement would be to create 200 sigs ( not including different versions of sigs, otherwise I'd be over 50 sigs by now ) Or mayby designing a new and more friendly version of a template, but to other users, my accomlishments mean very little. Other people edit this wiki to edit, so 5000 edits, or massivly revamping 2 pages, and them then being seperately given article of the month, would be their best achievement. Other people spend their entire time tagging and transparentizing images, others updating the grand exchange prices. Because of this, others may well look down on somebody because they've only made 6 mainspace edits (yep thats me, the guy who'll never be admin.)Because of this, I think we be very careful of how we do this.
  

On another note: I suppose that anybody that is worthy to be an admin will know what to say because they have done great things to be nominated.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a idea that would be great to have. Those questions even make me question my own actions, even though I do not plan on requesting, at least yet. This should help the community reach more of a consensus about whether someone should accepted into the honor of adminship and make a would be requester think before requesting without thought. - TehKittyCat^{Talk Wikian-Book} 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Administrator requests

I've created a new page that is intended to help provide a central location for general and hopefully trivial requests that require administrator tools, but can be dealt with by any administrator and not somebody in particular. I've had some requests of this nature on my talk page, and it was something noted in the discussion about User:Stinkowing.

Frankly, I think is message on User:Stinkowing/Main Page/A message to EVERYONE! has some validity in terms of having one person get bombarded with requests for this, that and the other thing, where some admins can get overwhelmed trying to please everybody on everything. There are enough administrators here that we can certainly help share some of this work, and I'd hate to see requests for administrator actions not get accomplished just because a particular admin is overwhelmed at the moment with stuff that happens in life.

At the moment, this is just a proposal of an idea, but I would like to add a link to this page on the side bar and at the top of the Yew Grove... and elsewhere on this wiki as appropriate. I would also strongly encourage administrators to put this page on their watch list. It is not intended to be a substitute for the Yew Grove, but I am hoping that some of the more mundane requests that do show up on the Yew Grove can be moved to this page instead. --Robert Horning 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It seems useful and would make it easier for all admins as well as saving a lot of time. Full support. Andrew ^talk 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea- This is a great idea. As per the perfect example of Stinkowing, this would benefit both the needs of users and it's active administrators. 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good one Buzz ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I've already added this to my watch list. ~kytti khat– 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - excellent idea. It's proved useful so far. ^_^ Andrew ^talk 06:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Animations

First I have to say; Yes I tried to get GIF. files from WMV. but it just doesn't work. WMV is movie sorted and GIF is signature short clips in low quality.

Why not just let me upload WMV. files and increase the HD animations in the wiki? --Boilar 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats going on? TEbuddy 08:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the WMV file format is that it is a proprietary file format that requires special permissions just to be able to write some software that uses that file format. It requires signing contracts with Microsoft, payment of royalties, and several other legal hassles that simply make it unreasonable for a free-software (remember, MediaWiki is a GPL'd "open source" application) developers to support. This isn't a decision made here by local administrators, but a much bigger problem than you are suggesting here.

Animated GIF images are something that is supported within most major web browsers... in fact for nearly the whole history of the web browsers. While clunky and awkward to use, at least these images load on nearly every graphical web browser on nearly ever operating system that can read this website. That certainly isn't the case with WMV files as well.

Essentially, unless you are willing to negotiate a contract with Microsoft and can also simultaneously get all of the major web browser developers to offer native support of the MWV file, there isn't going to be an easy way to add this file type onto these web pages. Yes, there are some "media converters", but that requires even more software and licenses and other problems.

If you need help and guidance with making animated GIF images, depending on what exactly you are trying to achieve, I and others here on this wiki can suggest some software packages to help you out here. I'm sorry this isn't easier to do, and I would agree, in a perfect world you shouldn't have to worry about file format conversion issues. Unfortunately, real world politics intrude even on this rather mundane level. --Robert Horning 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests

I am requesting an admin to un-delete the article 24 December, as per the conversation below:

24 December

I am interested in why you deleted the content on this page. Yes, the information is about a specific character but that was not the intent of the article, it is Runescape History that a player has received 200M experience in 4 skills, and as an encyclopedia dedicated to RuneScape, we should cover more content then just in game information. Perhaps a revision to dis-include the name, but not the deletion. If you read on other articles, such as 200 million experience you will find information about specific players. Why is this information not removed cause it is player specific. Please un-delete the article and if necessary remove the player's name, and if this is not the case, I will request it from other administrators or complete a vote for un-deletion. Thanks.

P.S. If you are going to delete an article, please complete the task and remove all links to this article as leaving behind Red Links is very unprofessional.

22:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: 24 December

Firstly, it'd be rather hard to prove. Secondly, there was a discussion in the Yew Grove a while back about whether or not players need their own pages. Thirdly...I get lazy sometimes. ...I think that's all. WWTDD? 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Lazy in not an excuse to not preform your administrative duties. Why would you delete an article and not continue to remove all other pages that contains this article as a link? Please un-delete this article and change what is necessary. It is encyclopedic to RuneScape as history has been made on this day.

22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content from there, we can discuss the relevance of its undeletion or not on a more appropriate forum...

200M in 4 Skills

On 24 December, Gertjaars became the first player to achieve 200M experience in 4 skills. These skills are Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. He also surpassed previous number 1 player, Zezima, for the most experience for a player.

Frankly, I think the deletion was appropriate and the content needed to go, although it certainly isn't "confidential" or anything radical. There just isn't any need for stuff like this on the wiki. Copy this if you want it, as it will be removed from this page soon enough. --Robert Horning 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

From the content, the article qualified as a player article and therefore is subject to speedy deletion.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - But it's not the fact it is a specific player, it's the fact RuneScape History was made. Can't we re-word it the say On 24 December, the first player in history attained 200M experience is 4 skills, being Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. They also attained the highest experience points on a single account. or something like that? It's not about identifying the user, it' about the history of RuneScape that was made.

23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Take this discussion to the RS:YG if you want to get some wider input on it. This is not the appropriate forum for discussing this issue. --Robert Horning 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As has been done

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The delete seems quite right to me. I have stated before that any mentioning of players in articles could open a door to all sorts of "so what" type information, and here is a great example. Good for Gertjaars, but it is highly irrelevant. It has absolutely no impact on the game, the community, or anything else. --Degenret01 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with Degenret. It's basically a player article. Andrew ^talk 06:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so let me get this right. Even if I change the article to say On 24 December, the first player in history attained 200M experience is 4 skills, being Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. They also attained the highest experience points on a single account. you don't agree that this is in encyclopedic information about RuneScape. HISTORY was made this day! If we are not going to discuss the importance of RuneScape's history, I propose deleting the Andrew Gower page etc. It has no significance to the game, but it does it's history. Come on people, it's not a player's article. It's all about good intention, and that's what I have. If you guys really don't want it in, fine, I'll drop it, but I think it is important. Honor the history!!!!!!!!

07:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets compare what I said to what you responded to. I said "It has absolutely no impact on the game, the community, or anything else". Your saying we can delete Andrew Gower on the same premise? Really? I think your getting a little worked up man. And yes, even without his name in the article, I do not see it as worth anything.--Degenret01 07:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a player achieving a lot of experience in their skills and the man who created the game.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

07:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I was honestly hoping more from you guys and am extremely disappointed. This wikia is about information, not censoring the facts. Okay, if it what you guys want then that is okay with me. You are both trusted editors, respectable sysops and whom intent is and always will be for this wikia. If you feel it is not suitable I will not push it any longer. Note though: RuneScape's history is as important to players, users and fellow editors. Censoring the content of made history just limits this wikia. It's against the policies and procedures to create a player article (though I was trying to make it so it was not one) but in those policies and procedures it states that some things can be hindered to benefit. Prime example being the slang dictionary right. It is not directly related to the game, just an extra for the convenience of the user. RuneScape history is made and charted in the article 200 million experience, and players are mentioned in this article without censorship. Why are some articles allowed this privilege to document but not other when the intent is the same? Please don't respond to this but just think about irony and how consistent this is to the policies and procedures. It's really confusing.

I am going to end my involvement with this Yew Grove discussion. Thanks for your input and look forward to serving this wikia with you in the future.

P.S. I'm looking forward to future discrepancies. They are fun aren't they? :)

07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I guess this discussion is over but I'd like to point out that a lot of other date articles have information about players achieving 99 in certain skills or experience. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks Kudos!! Some being Level 99 skills, Hiscores, 200 million experience and more.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, what I meant even more was an article such as 14 June, which mentions Zezima getting 1 billion experience. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen such information vandalised with people putting their own names in rather, than the person who actually did get first to 99 or whatever, and how are we supposed to know unless they are very well known? I'm not sure why this player related stuff is in these articles at all. Most of it has only survived because it is embedded in larger articles, not that it should, but creating an article purely about one person should rightly have been deleted. Hurston ^{(T # C)} 11:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on user info - The toughest problem I find with information about individual user accomplishments is mainly one of verifiability. Yes, I know you can look at the high scores page for top users and find what their skill levels are right now, but it is difficult to "go back in time" and find who was the "first" to reach a certain accomplishment like the first to get level 99 in Summoning. I admit that this particular accomplishment by Gertjaars is something of a singular accomplishment in the annals of players in the game, and that getting to max experience points is something of a game itself.

I still think, in spite of what is a remarkable accomplishment, it still isn't remotely notable in that this particular user did nothing that has any sort of long-term impact on the game. If this player suddenly stopped playing, would anything in the game be different? Besides besting high scores, what else has been accomplished? To me, that is just a rather empty accomplishment, even if it is something of note between one player and another. Then again, I consider people who compare combat levels and skill levels to a bunch of kids trying to compare various parts of their anatomy to each other trying to suggest who is bigger or not. With few exceptions, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. --Robert Horning 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bonziibob. 4 skills to 200mil is History, as he said, and this wiki is "The Encyclopedia for all things Runescape" Including the History of Runescape. However, I think we create a page called something such as "Runescape History" or "Runescape Timeline", which has all dates of note from the first person to get a 99 (If we could ever prove that...) to first 99's in skills or 200mils in skills, or even clan related incidents that the community has decided is worth to be noted in Runescape's History.Before long, we are never goin g to be able to verify any piece of high level achievements, so I think that screenshots should be taken of the name etc, as well as the date.Runescape and its community is always changing, and records need to be kept.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to review Puremexican's use of admin tools

This is a request for the community to review Puremexican's use of his admin tools, as I have some concerns about his actions.

First of all, I do not think that Puremexican left the wiki in good standing, and do not understand why he was resysopped. When saying he was leaving for good, he made personal attacks on other users on his userpage [1], and apparently blocked Christine for fun.

Now that he has his powers back, he has made several, in my opinion, inappropriate actions. For example,

• Thinking it is okay to block before reviewing, a clear violation of RS:AGF [2]
• Insulting those he has blocked, feeding the trolls, violating the User treatment policy [3]
• Blocking users without assuming good faith, such as when a user accidentally forgot a "0" at the end of a Grand Exchange price [4],
• Using other users for what seems like his own testing purposes [5]
• Blocking an IP with absolutely no contributions [6] (unless they were deleted, which is not stated in his block summary) [7], in which he made a comment that the said IP was homosexual, again violating RS:UTP.
• Blocking a user who only made this good-faith contribution, allegedly "for being retarded" [8], again UTP.

...and these are just a few.

We cannot create an environment that is this hostile to newcomers. They are our most valuable source, and without them, the wiki would not be as good as it is today, because we were all newcomers once. In addition, our policies are here to help maintain a good atmosphere and help the encyclopedia flourish. If someone violates them, it degrades those goals.

When Puremexican became an admin, he signed this contract:

I, Puremexican, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban.

Personally, I think he has failed to live up to this contract. I am trying to assume good faith of him. However, his actions are harming the development of our users and the wiki, and he either needs to stop these actions or have his admin powers removed. Butterman62 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 24.31.187.36 - Heres what the I.P. did. Check the deleted user contributions. He created a page called Tip.It. and put (content was: '{{D|Spam and offensive/inappropriate content}} PWNS!* *Deletion of this article is an admission of flamboyant homosexuality.') The comment on "Homosexuality" was mere irony. As for blocking that I.P./User that made a mistake forgetting to put a 0 or something, I am only human, and being such, I made a mistake. Jmo , 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest of it I leave it for community discretion.Jmo

, 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Demotion to Rollback - Sysops are entrusted with a lot of power over the wiki. Misuse of this trust is not very great in means of providing a very community based setting for our users. Puremexican also stated that on Soldier 1033's RfA that he Opposed for specific reasons, then supported because he felt his oppose was cause he was having a bad day. Sysops need to be consistent with all there edits and beliefs. I too changed my supports in this RfA, but that is because I found additional information to persuade my edit, not because I was having an off day. I wish for Puremexican to continue to support and edit this wikia, but as a Rollback. 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stay a sysop - He's not the only admin who has ever assumed bad faith. FTWinston! ^talk 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another RFA All Sysops should be at least considerate, esp to other sysops. Calling everyone out when he quit is not the quality of an admin. ‎Atlandy 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do another RfA - Sorry, but since the time you left and when you came back, the expectations for administrators grew. Not to mention you didn't leave the most honorably. You asked to have your powers removed over a year ago (I think), and I would imagine that you would have to complete another RfA, with expectation inflation and all. If X1011 were to come back (of whom I do not know at all), I wouldn't be suprised if he had to do another RfA himself. When he was sysopped, there was no expectation. The same applies here, but to a lesser extent. Chiafriend12 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Stay a sysop A few mistakes do not constitute removal of power. TEbuddy 02:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Desysop if one actually spends a few minute looking at the examples cited above, it is CLEAR he is abusing his powers. How did he even get those tools back when he rejoined? Assuming good faith is critical. I think very very hard every time I have to hit block on someone. I try to imagine how the edit could be an accident before I pull the trigger. I may have made a few mistakes but I really hope not. It's what all sysops should be doing, and he does not. He can contribute for a month or two then do another RFA.--Degenret01 08:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay a sysop Really torn about this one as while I am trying to assume he's not abusing his powers because his normal edits are constructive, it is clear that he's left some personal attacks and may have abused his rights, however, I am inclined to trust him and I think that he will do much more good than bad if he remains a sysop as he is on a lot and blocks true vandals most of the time, with only a few instances of uncertain use of blocks. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral/Do another RfA - Although he's made his share of errors, he is only human. As for the "for being homosexual" summary when he blocked an IP, I don't think that was a good choice of words for the summary but if you saw the article that IP created you'd agree that the block was fair. I was the one that tagged that page for deletion. As for the other mistakes, he definitely isn't the first admin to make mistakes like that. If he absolutely must then another RfA might need to be started, but I believe in giving people second chances and overall I see that Puremexican has done a lot more good than harm. In my opinion he should either do another RfA or retain his admin privileges. Andrew ^talk 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call him a homosexual, look at the content that was on the page he created. "Deleting this page is a flamboyant sign of homosexuality". Then look at my block summary.Jmo

, 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pending - I'm not too sure about this one, I'm particularly confused about the circumstances under which his powers were reinstated. Dtm resysoped him with the comment 'Requested sysop powers - as he had left on good terms, he can be given adminship'. Was Dtm unaware of some of the leaving presents left by PureMexican? If the above revelations concerning PureMaxican would have meant that Dtm would not have given him his powers back had he known, then Desysop/RFA would be appropriate. Hurston ^{(T # C)} 15:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA Request - I saw some of the posts made, and honestly felt like it was not something an Admin should say or do... Eternalseed

Comment - At this point I could care less what happens to my powers. As I have seen in past RfA's (not mine) my opinion/attempt to "fend" for myself does not matter. Whats done is done and I can't change that no matter how much i regret doing so. In the end, if you want to reap my powers because of a couple misjudged mistakes fine. If not thats great too.Jmo , 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Puremexican, my goal is not to get you desysopped. My goal is to get these things to stop (sorry I didn't make that clear earlier). If you just want to go "Okay, I won't do it anymore", I'll drop the whole thing now. Butterman62 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If thats the case you could have taken this up with me on my talk page before going through all this trouble. It would have made me see my errors and taught me to be more careful...Jmo

, 00:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I've had bad experiences before doing that (not on this wiki, but elsewhere), with a message along the lines of "Go away, or else", and further rage ensuing of said people I talk to. I've got to remember that things are different here. So, it's over? :) Butterman62 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess so? :)?Jmo

, 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Keep admin rights So what? He made some mistakes, big deal. Everyone is human and there is always the chance of mistakes in one's life. I'm certain he has learned from his mistakes. For the last couple of weeks since his return, I have seen many positive edits, many good things he has done. There is no reason to demote him for something that was done over 7 months ago. I feel that he will do a lot of great edits staying a sysop. --Spencer ^{Talk | Contribs | Edits} 21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All the edits are from about one week ago to now, except for the ones concerning his resysopping. That's what concerns me. Had they been from that long ago, I wouldn't be as concerned. Butterman62 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New RfA - I don't care what anyone thinks of ME when I write this, it is about Puremexican. I don't understand why his powers were just given back to him either. But regardless, if he seems unfit, then they should be removed. If people think that he is fine, then he should not have to worry about completing another RfA successfully. Clearly blocking me for fun was stupid. What's worse what making a video of it and posting it on youtube. Adding the "flamboyant sign of homosexuality" to the block reason cannot be justified by "he did it first" because doing what Puremexican did was just feeding the trolls (along with the other edits and blocks that Butterman mentioned above), and this is something an admin should not do. I don't care if people don't like me, but it cannot be argued that I ever blocked anyone for fun, nor left in a huff and insulted people on my userpage. So no mentions of hypocrisy or any comments about MY behaviour here, this isn't about me. I don't see why a new RfA would be a big deal. Christine 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahaha. I knew that he would remove that video if I posted the link here. For anyone who would like to see it, I've saved a version. You can download it here. Chia has seen it, he should vouch for the authenticity. Someone tell me if the file and/or link doesn't work properly. Christine 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed the account and the warning said the videos and channel would remain on there...Jmo

, 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

=/ Andrew ^talk 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, it's funny, I saved & converted the video just last night. I have such -amazing- timing, no, grabbing a copy before you close the account? Check the date. Christine 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its hilarious. So hilarious i decided to log out of rs wiki and never log on ever again :D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bye everyone do to my powers as you wish. Im gonna archive my talk page and never log on again. Byes!!Jmo

, 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for new RfA then? Butterman62 (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogging option for RS Wiki

The following message was posted on my user talk page today:

Newspaper - random thought

I saw the discussion on the Runescape newspaper - very exciting!

I don't know if this would help or not, but Wikia recently launched a collaborative blog tool, that lets many people write their own blog posts in one place (think more magazine than newspaper) but maybe it would help. If you're interested, you can see it here: http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Blog:Recent_posts If the group wants one, we're happy to turn it on. If not, sorry for the bother Gil (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would be rather interesting, and I certainly would like the larger community to be aware of it. No, I don't know why my user talk page was singled out, other than that I am one of several admins here and I guess I've been pretty active lately.

As a part of the editorial section of the RS newspaper, perhaps this would be an interesting part to add. I'm certain that some rather interesting editorials could be developed that discuss various parts of the game (PKing, mods, new game features, Mechscape, etc.) and how they would affect the player community. It is at least something that deserves discussion here, and is another tool we can use in terms of discussing and promoting this game and wiki. --Robert Horning 16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - looks interesting and useful. I see no reason not to support this. Andrew ^talk 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Per below. I wasn't aware of the archived discussion. Andrew ^talk 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Absolutely not. We have already had this discussion here. Read the whole post before commenting. Christine 02:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not strictly the same issue here, and some of the problems that caused all of the grief for Halopedia would not, I believe, be an issue here, but it is useful to bring up the previous discussion. I would have to agree with you, the point system is simply silly and a complete waste of time or effort and can be highly counter-productive, but this isn't about the "personal profile" feature that Halopedia is using. I also agree with some of the points below about Wikia trying to turn into a social networking site that seems contrary to the goal of developing a site full of information about how to play the game of Runescape. I am not sure why the issue was raised on my user talk page instead of here at the Yew Grove, and that is what really causing me to scratch my head. The only real reason I'm bringing this forward is due to the fact that this tool was suggested to me by Wikia staff. --Robert Horning 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Christine is right; this idea has not only been shot down, but the passengers killed and the remains burning. I opposed then, as well. Stinkowing _{(WHAT'S IN IT?)}

Strong Oppose as well - That is something I hate on Halopedia, and I don't want this wiki to have to put up with that nonsense. --Spencer ^{Talk | Contribs | Edits} 03:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per myself in that archive, Christine, and everything. Halopedia practically got ruined community-wise after that was introduced. We don't want any part of it. Not to mention the potential newspaper project is in the opposite direction of the blog feature. Newspaper = informative. Blogs and all the other stuff = ...Must I say? Chiafriend12 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

After what was introduced? I just want to make sure we are on the same page here and talking about the same thing. This is not the same thing that ruined Halopedia, even though the blogging aspect is something to be concerned about. This is strictly a blogging feature where a user can add some content that can only be edited by that particular user, nothing more. Essentially, this is another variant of the forums and could even be a replacement of the forum feature we currently have. I don't know all of the issues here in terms of what this sort of blogging would do to us as a community, and I would agree that it is something very un-wiki like in nature. If the concern is an eventual creep into what has been happening on Halopedia (including the "personal images" issue... no wonder there is nearly religious opposition to any personal images), I can buy that argument as well. --Robert Horning 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As per everyone else. 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Isn't there a policy against blogging anyways, right here?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

11:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This policy comes from Wikipedia (i.e. mostly copied from Wikipedia), where the concern on Wikipedia was over objectivity with the development of the content. There were several issues for this policy:

• When the policy was originally implemented, there were huge concerns about flooding the early Wikipedia database with blogging content, that the server database would be nothing but blogs if it were permitted. Data storage costs were at the time huge, and those involved with Wikipedia didn't think they could sustain a website like some of the other blogging sites that were then brand-new. Mind you, there are essay articles that are essentially blogs anyway on Wikipedia, but those tend to be about policies and politics internal to the wiki than something regarding external issues like Iraq, 9/11, and Israel (to note some hot-button issues). Long-term data storage costs have substantially dropped over the years so this is not nearly as huge of a problem as it once was, and data storage costs for textual information is now incredibly cheap, so concerns about storage costs are now largely irrelevant.
• Concerns (which I think are just as valid here with the RS Wiki) about maintaining a neutral point of view and objectivity for creating an encyclopedia. Opinions can't be challenged for validity as one person's opinion is just as good and the next person's. While this wiki isn't strictly an encyclopedia, I do think some sort of scholarly standards should apply here as well.
• Limits to the scope of the project are ignored by adding features like this. I know that I have encouraged and fought for expansion of different features on this project (like the GEMW), but at the same time there does reach a point that you have to ask if adding blogging is going to change the community in a more destructive nature. Certainly on Wikipedia there were concerns about blogging bringing in an aspect to the community of a group of individuals that would be there for the blogging and not for trying to develop the content.

There is no reason this policy couldn't be changed via community consensus (which is precisely what is happening here... at least trying to see if the community is ready for this), so I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't do this strictly because there is a policy against it. All that means is you shouldn't start a blog here without at least trying to change the current policy. Policies are never immutable once set, and from time to time it is healthy to question why the policy exists in the first place, even if the ultimate decision is one to keep the policy in place. --Robert Horning 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree. This an old policy that clearly needs re-looked at. I was not using the policy as an argument per say, just bringing it to user's attention.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

12:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Should this discussion really take place here? The wiki newspaper has not yet achieved consensus at all. This issue should be brought to attention RuneScape:WikiGuild/Proposals/RS Newspaper here to see if the users who are going to work on the newspaper want this. If they do, this feature can be added to the wiki if the newspaper project reaches consensus. Dtm142 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to this discussion, I think it is appropriate to raise the issue here on the Yew Grove as opposed to the part of the community which is developing the guidelines and content for the newspaper. This feature, while it certainly has applications within the RS Newspaper, is something that could have an impact far beyond even that feature and requires a basic change to the software configuration that is running this wiki. There is nothing in this software that would restrict this to be used only with the newspaper, although admittedly we could establish a policy to make it restricted only to guidelines developed by the newspaper working group.

Since there seems to be nearly universal opposition to this idea (no, I still don't think the comparison to Halopedia is appropriate, but that is irrelevant regarding the support for this change to the wiki), I'm not going to be pushing the idea any further. If there seems to be a group that really wants this, go ahead and start another thread on this topic, but I don't see it happening until well after this particular thread is archived and a part of a misty past that most people have forgotten about. --Robert Horning 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Records

I was thinking about a new page called: RuneScape Records. All of the records are written down in this page like:

• Closest Furnace to a bank
  • P2P: Edgeville
  • F2P: Falador

For example, and ofcourse, player records, like Zezima:

• First player to achieve 1,000,000,000 total experience
  • Zezima

And even more! How about that? Buzz ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral on this idea, but leaning more towards oppose (I know this isn't a vote or anything, but I'm unsure how to describe my position). But I don't think "Records" fits for your first examples. And how will you judge the closest of anything? What about shortcuts and such? But anyways, I don't think distances are really records. And I don't know how I feel about the player page records, because first, how do you cite it, and second, how do you determine what is notable enough to be written about? This is pretty much why we don't allow player pages to begin with. Christine 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Christine. Player records are not notable nor verifable. The closest furnace to a bank could be noted in the furnace article, but we do not need a page listing miscellaneous records. Dtm142 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-support - I would be supportive of an Almanac of various features in the game, which could include some listing of notable features like the longest river, largest city (in terms of NPC population or buildings), highest & lowest points you can access, or other similar kinds of features that can be verified in-game. These don't have to be necessarily in articles strictly about the features (like the Furnace article) and could be better organized in a whole bunch of ways that would also be very useful for players.
  Articles about individual players (even groups of players), however, would be difficult due to verifiability. Who might have been the first player to defeat the King Black Dragon? Who has the longest continuous run in the Brimhaven Agility Arena? I don't know how this sort of information could be remotely verified. Even though Zezima's accomplishment of 1 billion exp is documented in a number of places (and can be verified that he is indeed above that number of experience points on the high scores pages), verifying when that happened is rather difficult. Jagex doesn't let web crawlers go through the high score pages (at least ones that follow ROBOTS.TXT guidelines). --Robert Horning 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am really liking the Almanac idea, but it would be really very hard to document and require many hours of research, insight and depth into conversation, etc. How would we determine what is suitable to enter and what is not. Most facts are already in the article they are about anyways, so the point in summing them up is really pointless when it's already in the wikia. A disambig page set-up linking pages which support almanac material, but that is also pointless. I don't like the idea of records, as per DTM.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per Christine and Dtm. Andrew ^talk 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per Christine, Dtm, and Soldier. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but most of that information is already in other articles. Level 99 skills has records of who was the first to get all 99s for each skill and total level, and as Dtm said, the 'closest furnace award' could be in the furnace article. I'm not sure exactly what this page would look like, either. If it's just a list, it sounds kinda' boring. Though if it could be useful, it could act as a hub somehow. Chiafriend12 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per DTM‎Atlandy 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-opposition This would be a good idea if not for the player records part; players can always look at the Highscores list on the RuneScape website for this. And it shouldn't be called records - is a close furnace really a record? Call it the Almanac like Robert Horning suggests. Mythomagic5 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support of 2 different articles.I reckon an almanac would be really good, especially if it was categoriesd into segmennts such as smithing-->f2p--> closest furnace to bank: Falador or Al karid. Also, This wiki REALLY needs a Runescape Player history, which has all information from the world 111 massacre to Zezima getting 1bil xp and gertjaars gettin 4 200mil's (see 24th December, above). Runescape needs a History of events, not lots of different articles such as the level 99 one and other vague articles. We need one article/subarticles which has all the runescape player history in chhronological order to the best of our ability, with as much evidence as can be hoarded. Eg: pic of the highscores or of the world 111 massacre. Soon there'll be hordes of people with 4 200mils, so no one will know, unless we have this article.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is still one of verifiability. In terms of specific users, it is quite difficult to note who exactly did what to start any major riot or protest. The World 111 massacre is at least documented how it started, as there were a great many people who were there and it is mentioned in several fan website forums. Certainly there are events that happen in the game which are not "officially" referenced in the "weekly" (more or less) updates posted by Jagex regarding the game. Several riots and other similar kinds of events have been brought up for a VfD on the grounds of verifiability and notability... and how far do we draw the line here? Is a Castle Wars encounter between two major clans sufficient for noting and writing up an article here? What about a player completing Legends Quest? BTW, I put players earning 1 billion exp to be more or less in the same category as those who have completed the Legends Quest, just on a slightly different scale. More than worthy to put on your user page if you want to brag about it, but not worth more than a footnote anywhere else, certainly not about anybody who is not a regular participant on this wiki. Zezima perhaps a special mention by having a few player firsts, but otherwise even he isn't really all that special. --Robert Horning 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that: If it wasn't done by Jagex, it isn't worth having? wow, that's...strange... Oh, and about the legend quest thing: One user completing the legend's quest isn't History, unless he/she was noteably the first to compleat it (which, compared to the others, which are easy to prove, is impossible to prove.) it isn't relevant. The importance of the 200mil in 4 skills is: IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE... (and, to my knowledge) HAS NEVER BEEN DONE SINCE. Don't get me wrong, it is highly unlikely I ever even start the Legend's Quest, I don't even want to start it. But about 1/3 of the people that have any skill cape have the quest cape. Quite possibly, a 1/5th of level 100+'s will have done legends for the ability to wield the Dragon sq. someone being first to 4 200mils is ONE name, not thousands. If and when someone gets 5 200mils, it should be noted down on the page.--Zilenserz^{talk! Join the RSWP today!} 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't like this particular accomplishment, achieving 200 million exp in 4 skills, has gone unnoticed on this wiki anyway, nor unmentioned. BTW, I was the user who restored the information about what users achieved level 99 for each skill on Level 99 skills and demanded that at least some sort of consensus happen there before information like this was removed from that and similar articles. That information was previously removed by somebody (you can look it up in the history log if you care... it is irrelevant to bring him up in this discussion) who thought it was site-wide policy to remove all references to any and all individual players in main-space articles. There is no firm policy, but there are several schools of thought and certainly several participants here who have a wide range of opinions on this topic.

The issue of notability still is there, and what exactly makes somebody notable. Perhaps, just perhaps, I might accept some note for the first to certain skill capes and max exp. I've even brought up the idea for a special cape when players hit MAXINT (aka 2^31, which is when high scores can no longer be calculated). That hasn't happened yet, but it seems like there will eventually be a player with that many experience points. Still, now that somebody getting max exp in four skills has happened, what about five skills, six skills, seven skills, etc? What exactly is something notable for inclusion here? I mention the Legend's Quest because it is a major accomplishment for an individual player, but it really isn't something I'd call notable beyond just a few close friends and perhaps throwing a party in your POH after doing that quest. A major clan rumble might be perhaps a bit more notable (just to get something like that organized alone), and a major riot certainly fits the bill as something which has achieved notoriety in the game... or a hugely embarrassing glitch like what caused the world 111 massacre. But I don't see a clear line of notability here in this spectrum of notable accomplishments and mundane things like players who have completed the Restless ghost quest. Where, exactly, should the line be drawn here for notability? --Robert Horning 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Images Needing Transparency

As per the project, RuneScape:Image Maintenance, Category:Images needing transparency contains a large number of pictures that require transparency. Within this category are a vast amount of pictures that do not meet our wiki standards and it was here that I am trying to get feedback on how to clean this up. I would love to see it where zero images require transparency meaning that all these images have it however a vast of these pictures are low detail, have anti-aliasing, or are saved as a format other then PNG. I ponder why these images are in this category as they do not meet standard criteria anyways and the effort making them transparent is pointless. I'm looking for opinions on implicating a method to reduced these pictures within this category so I was thinking a new transparency policy is possible where pictures would have to meet these criteria before being eligible to be placed in the Category:Images needing transparency:

• Must be in PNG File Format;

• Files currently located here, must be retaken and saved as a PNG

• Images must be High-Detail;

• Files currently located here, must be retaken as HD

• Must be taken with Anti-Aliasing turned off;

• Files currently located here, must be retaken with AA off

Once all of these criteria are met, transparency should then be requested.

Looking for opinions, please let me know. Thanks!

01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense, as if an image is a jpg, non HD, or AA then it will have to be retaken. If all images in Category:Images needing transparency already met those criteria then it is simply a case of removing the background of the existing image. This would encourage those who know how to make images transparent to do so, and those who don't can take required images and tag them for someone to make them transparent. I also think the transparency template would have to be updated so people know not to use it on images that should be retaken. --Mizon^talk 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - nice idea and per Mizon's comments. Andrew ^talk 05:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support+Comment - It's a good idea since it is pointless to add the transparency template to sd and non-png images that are going to be replaced with HD images sooner or later. But I have a query, is AA good or bad? Because this page [[9]] seems to say that AA is good? And one of the criteria is "must be taken with AA off". C.Chiam^{TalkShoutout!} 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It depends on the situation in which Anti-Aliasing is used. For moving images, such as GIF's, and for images that do not require transparency anti-aliasing should be turned on, but for images that require transparency anti-aliasing should be turned on off.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonzi i think you meant to say AA should be off for images that are transparency candidates (i discussed the difficulties of applying transparency to images that are anti-aliased on someone's talk page that i can't recall). Anti-aliasing does make the images smoother for images that will not have transparency, so the general rule of thumb would be, animations and images that won't have transparency should have anti-aliasing turned on, and still images that are intended for transparency should be taken with anti-aliasing turned off. The main goal (in my opinion) of why to have clean transparency of images is the goal of re-skinning the RS Wiki, which will likely be something darkish and similar to www.runescape.com yet distinct at the same time. Currently most images that have transparency and anti-aliasing will look poor on dark backgrounds. Worse for some reason, most tables viewed under the Gaming skins have a light background that makes their text unreadable. At one point I was still of the opinion that this Wiki could be led forward to a re-skinning, but as far as i can see for now, it will take someone with more time and dedication than myself to lead the way. ~kytti khat– 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kytti, but some users can't do this. I am one of those, I upload most of the animations here on the Wiki, but my computer is just too slow to play Runescape on AAx4. I DID try it with AAx4 in the beginning, see the examples right of here. But the results were laggy images. Mercifull CAN play on AAx4, without making laggy images. Personally, I think that this shouldn't be a big problem, as the images are clearly showing what must be showed.-- Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried more so about the AA on animations as I am for still images.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chat

If users would look at the way this wikia has setup its information in regards to RuneScape Chat, it is rather, well to be bland, sloppy. When one looks into the very important means of communication the first things they see is a disambig page, Chat. Following the links provided here they can be taken to several other pages of what contain articles to be merged, moved, cleaned up, etc. Following links on these pages will bring more articles requiring merging, clean up, etc.

In general in what I am trying to say is the interface we use to offer information about Chat needs to be cleaned up. I am proposing a short-term project dedicated to this clean up. This means that the page, Chat would be the host of this clean up. All pages linked to and about chat would be entered on to this page. This means that all articles, from Clan Chat, to Public chat, to All, and Assist, Clan (chat interface), Chat filter, Friends List, Message box, etc would be cleaned up and built/moved to be directly corresponded with this page. This would in turn lead to subpages being created however I feel that the information we have in regards to player communication is very unorganized. Moving these pages would also require a great deal of time, new redirects, deleting of redirects, changing links on hundreds on pages etc, but when complete would be a great advantage to the wikia in terms of consistent format.

Before I took the many hours required to plan a project, build a solid platform and began recruiting and making these changes I was looking for input from others to see if my opinion on this matter is mutual with others. If there is a genuine consensus made I would love to begin working on this.

Thanks!

P.S. As I am not an administrator this project would require a large amount of support and time from administration. To move and delete pages as well as protect, etc on others.

05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'll do my best to help but with my current unpredictable schedule I can't guarantee anything right now. Andrew ^talk 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else willing?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith policy (Requesting Revision)

This policy is by no means specific all it says is to assume good faith towards newcomers and to delete vandalism. You don't always know if they are a newcomer for one and two the only time you shouldn't assume good faith is towards vandalism? They are other cases such as self-promotion or pure ignorance that you shouldn't assume good faith towards because if you did it would spread like a disease.Please re-write this policy it desperately needs it.--Gamebox77

I'm confused, could you reword what you're trying to say/ask? As far as determining if a person is a newcomer, their contributions history is helpful in determining that. Most of the rest is more or less degrees of good faith. ~kytti khat– 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hilites

I am proposing that all forum administrators receive a new hilite on their name. They have attained a successful RfA, such as all other administrators and have been recognized by the community as one who deserves these rights, so to address them as one with these rights, and to compare themselves to the other admins who have colored hilites, I propose them getting the same. Perhaps Bonziiznob as an example.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions!

20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer
  Bonziiznob ^Talk
  20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been away for a long time so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. But by "forum administrators" do you mean our regular sysops or is there a new mod for the Yew Grove or something? (Or do you mean official RS Forum mods?) Also, holy crap, this page needs archiving. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by your lord Andorin (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an admin who only has rights on the forums, such as moves, polls, page deletes etc...

Bonziiznob ^Talk

20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, sure, why not? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by your lord Andorin (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - why do we need to highlight forum admins on the wiki when they have no powers here? They only have tools on the forums. Also, we already use pink to highlight helpers. Andrew ^talk 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I asked Wikia to add the ability for bureaucrats to add forum admin using the user rights page a month or so ago. Forum Admins can moderate the forums, as well as create stickys and polls. I oppose hiliting them because forum admins do not have any admin abilities on the wiki itself. Dr5ag2on1 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, it does kinda look pink, but I was aiming for purple. Why would we allow an RfF, they are still our users what have gone through a community decision to attain these rights therefore they do have direct power that has been given by this wiki. Although they do not contribute to articles or such with sysops abilities, they are still admins...even the clan chat gives them the same rank as a sysops...

Bonziiznob ^Talk

• I support, as it is still an elevated user right. Rollbacks should be highlighted as well. FTWinston! ^talk 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure about rollback highlight. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by your lord Andorin (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Forum Admin is an elevated user right on the forums, not the wiki. Also, why would we need to highlight rollbacks? Andrew ^talk 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, I oppose the rollback hilite..it would start to look like a rainbow on the recent changes...

Bonziiznob ^Talk

21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this idea per reasons stated above, and oppose the idea of hilighted rollbacks. It seems to me that the coloured names provide a guidance for those who may have questions. Highlighting everyone might not be a good idea. 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Now that you put it that way, I change to oppose. It wouldn't be very helpful to ask a forumadmin about editing. FTWinston! ^talk 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I close this then, because it seems anonymous that it's not wanted. I will move this to the archives. 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect site - policy?

I was browsing Special:SpecialPages last night and found an option only available to administrators called "Protect site" under the "Other special pages" section.

The following are the options that may be used to semi- or fully protect parts or all of this wiki for up to 24 hours.

Allow creation of new accounts by

• All users
• Registered users and sysops
• Sysops only

Allow creation of pages by

• All users
• Registered users and sysops
• Sysops only

Allow editing of pages by

• All users
• Registered users and sysops
• Sysops only

Allow moving of pages by

• Registered users and sysops
• Sysops only

Allow file uploads by

• Registered users and sysops
• Sysops only

Timeout: (Maximum: 24 hours)

I'm guessing this has never been used for and it probably isn't a good idea to use it unless there is an extreme emergency, but I think that there should be a policy so this option is never misused and so admins know when to use it, how to use it, and for how long to enable it.

I don't think it's visible by non-sysops, but it can be accessed by going to Special:Protectsite. Andrew ^talk 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already protected the site once now. I agree that we should have some sort of policy on it, like when it should be used.  C Teng ^talk 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I take responsibility for anything that might have caused issues during the protect site. However, we had a persistent vandal that was continually making new accounts, and had both myself and Sir Revan working to block and delete the spam. I saw it a necessary step to ensure the safety of the encyclopedia and to allow central time to run a checkuser. My initial protect site was for 30 minutes, and when that expired, the vandal came back, and I had yet to hear anything from central. But back to discussing the policy. I agree that it's drastic, and a policy that includes this needs to be brought up quick in the event that something like today happens again. 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing, Karlis. See my rough draft of the policy below. Andrew ^talk 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is the second time to the best of my knowledge that this feature has ever been used, the first was on the 23^rd of June '08 (the protection lasted 2 hours) after the wiki was attacked by multiple vandal bots, within a ten minute timeframe, before Uberfuzzy and Dechainex were able to block the bots and issue the site protection.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

02:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Protectsite policy - Rough draft

Here's a watered down version of it. The full version can be accessed at RuneScape:Protectsite.

The ProtectSite feature may be used in the event of:

• Extreme vandalism by one or more users that occurs at a fast enough pace that administrator(s) cannot keep up
  

& A wiki-wide update (for example, if major changes were being made to templates that would affect 500 articles)

The site should only be fully protected if the vandalism is caused by multiple autoconfirmed users. In other cases a site-wide semi-protection should be used instead. The length of the protection is generally decided at the discretion of the administrator enabling the protection. Abuse of this feature can lead to the revoking of sysop privileges and all site-wide protections, semi- or full, must be reviewed by the community on the Yew Grove to determine whether or not they were necessary and to decide whether or not any recourses should be taken against the administrator in question.

The protecting sysop must also notify the wiki of the protection and how long the protection will last via the MediaWiki:Sitenotice.

What do you all think? Andrew ^talk 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - as nominator for this policy. Andrew ^talk 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Site-wide protections may (and have) become necessary. As such, I think it's best that we put administrators' minds at rest. They should know that they will be praised, not disciplined, for protecting the site under certain circumstances.
  

  Supertech1 

  T

  C

  E
  02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Admins should also state which options they set when they post the protection notice. Dr5ag2on1 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with this. If what Luckytoilet is saying is true, about this person creating a vandalbot, we're going to need to get something done, quick. I was going to set a Site Notice, but I was a bit more concerned, at the time, with ensuring that the vandal was stopped. 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - With the recent string of attacks and by the means necessary to address these issues our options are becoming more limited to address these mass vandals. This would help a lot.
  Bonziiznob ^Talk
  03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This guy is really starting to get on my nerves. It'd be nice if we had a way to deal with him. WWTDD? 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - With this mass vandalism, admins should know how to react to the situation and this policy will probably help a lot. No reason why the wiki shouldn't have this policy. C.Chiam^{TalkShoutout!} 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Undecided- Well this seems like a nice way to go in the way of preventing vandalism, but then protecting the entire wiki would prevent honest users from editing and instead give my friend the satisfaction of doing so much damage to the wiki. Other vandals like him may come back time to time and force the wiki to be protected again. Plus if one wiki is protected there are still hundreds of others to vandalize, so no- I don't think this is a good solution. But the idea is good.
  Luckytoilet
  22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't saying this is a solution, we're saying that there needs to be a policy for this tool to ensure that there isn't any abuse. Andrew ^talk 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm maybe protect the wiki for autoconfirmed only for a short time? This may work as a temporary measure but more wikia-wide changes would have a greater effect against vandal-bots.

Luckytoilet

22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking about solutions for any problems. This is simply a policy to ensure that every admin knows when they are permitted to use the Protectsite tool. Andrew ^talk 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We should add that the protecting sysop should update the sitenotice to the policy. From reading the forums, there were a few confused users who thought they were banned. Dr5ag2on1 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I've added it. Thanks. :) Andrew ^talk 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the community has reached a consensus I have put the policy into effect and archived this discussion. Andrew ^talk 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for an upgrade!

I have great news. With a little bit of effort, I was able to convince my company to donate a server to the RuneScape Wiki for an IRC network.

I'm sure most of you have either been on our IRC channel or at least seen it listed on the menu as "IRC chat". IRC is a versatile chat protocol and has the potential to aid the growth of our fabulous community. For some time now, we've been using a single channel on Freenode, a non-profit IRC network used by most smaller wikis. It has served us well, and thanks to ChristineV (Clv309), it has remained a peaceful location for chatting for quite some time now.

However, seeing as we are being given the opportunity, it would probably be beneficial for us to move up to the next level: our own network. Unfortunately, I can't go into all of the details of what a network is and how much more useful it can be than a single channel, but I'll do my best to point out the major differences and advantages.

First off, a network isn't run by somebody else. Freenode has the power to intervene with our channel at any point without reason. While Freenode in general might be respectful, there risk of abuse is always present.

We can run our network as we run our wiki: without ranks or pointless bans. I've spent quite a few days working with Soldier 1033 to design and program an IRC network that is capable of "running itself". The network will automatically check all incoming connections against known "blacklisted" IP's to prevent large botnets. If a user spams individually or starts flaming, the network will automatically warn the user first by kicking him/her, then eventually issuing a channel ban. Bans that are unnecessary are not made.

Of course, all computerised systems are fallible. Therefore, it will be necessary to elect several IRCops (the term for an IRC administrator/moderator). These IRCops will be capable of disconnecting users from the network and issuing server-wide bans. Such action will rarely be necessary, however, and all such activity will be logged. After action is taken, the IRCop must file a report on a CVU dedicated to IRC so that the community may review the ban on the Yew Grove if necessary. The goal in this is to provide a system of checks and balances similar to that of the wiki itself. While IRCops will have the power to ban, the community ultimately decides which consequences are necessary and which are not.

Every network is divided up into multiple channels. Our network will have a main lobby channel, #wikia-runescape, where most users will stay. However, should a user want to start his/her own channel, (s)he is welcome to do so without any approval—just as a wiki contributor is free to start any article. Users will be permitted to run their own channels as they please; think of them as user pages. By default, flood protection and censoring will be enabled on all new channels. IRCops will have the ability to step in if a channel gets out of control or a channel's owner is abusing his/her ability to create channels at will, but just like on the wiki, all actions will be logged and visible to the community. If the community decides that an IRCop is being abusive, that IRCop's power can easily be revoked or limited.

Remember, these are just the basic details of how the network will function. In reality, there are many, many more advantages. Also, the network is completely customisable: the community can change how it work however and whenever it pleases. We don't have this sort of Wiki-ness on Freenode.

Now, I have received some criticism regarding this idea that has been, to say the least, unhelpful. Downright no's are a little confusing, as they don't offer explanations as to what must be improved. My goal here is to give the wiki room to expand. There are no real disadvantages to having our own network, other than the fact that it is time consuming and difficult to set up—a task that has already been completed. I'd also like to address some common questions that I've received:

• Won't we lose some of our IRC users that come here from other wikis? - Fortunately, we won't. The new network is no less accessible than Freenode, and it will/does have web clients that allow direct access. Most clients allow connections to multiple networks, so Freenode/Swift users will be able to join our network without any difficulty.
• What about our current channel ops—isn't it unfair to take away their power? - Don't worry, the goal is not to "derank" anybody. Just as anyone can be nominated for adminiship, anyone can be nominated to become an IRCop. Our current IRC channel has some very loyal, trustworthy members: ChristineV (Clv309) and Otter-man (Stinkowing), to name just a few. If the community agrees that they should be IRCops, then they will not only retain the access they have now, but they will gain even more. However, there's no guarantee that a request will pass. That's up to you, the community.
• Do we really need a whole network? Our channel is sufficient. - No, we don't need a network, and yes, our channel is sufficient. And if the prospect of a network seems too overwhelming, don't worry—you'll still be able to sit in a common channel and chat away. However, being confined to a channel on Freenode does limit our options. We are a very successful community, and there is no reason that we should limit ourselves in such a manner. Having our own network opens up countless opportunities for both contributors and those who use our wiki as a resource for RuneScape, and is even likely to attract more contributors. While individually channels on large networks rarely receive much attention, even the smallest networks often have people that sort of just "wander in".
• What about all of the services that Freenode offers? - Freenode's services are minimal. I've already installed quite a few more services than Freenode has to offer, so we're more than set in that area.
• Freenode maintains our privacy. How do we know you will, too? - Freenode doesn't maintain anyone's privacy; it's behind the eight-ball in that area, actually. Everyone can see the IP addresses of others, a feature that doesn't line up with Wikia standards. Our own network is already set up to encrypt all IP's many times over with MD5, so users who do not want to share their IP's aren't forced to do so. Of course, all connections are logged for legal reasons, but just like on Wikia, the information will only be released in a court of law or if absolutely necessary (at the discretion of the community).
• Freenode is secure. Won't the new network be less secure, as it has less staff members? - Just a few days ago, Freenode went down due to a (D)DoS attack. As I've already mentioned, our network is as protected as it can be against botnets, so if anything, the dedicated network is more secure.

So, what do you think?

Updates

• 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Clarification: The new network will have support for CGI:IRC. In fact, it will directly support CGI:IRC's webirc protocol, whereas Freenode does not.
• 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Well, seeing as the change has received a good deal of support, I've decided to go ahead and open up a trial run. CGI:IRC can be accessed at [10] and pjIRC at [11]. I understand that there is still opposition, but much of it is based on false assumptions. As such, I figured letting everybody test it out would cure any false rumors once and for all. ;)

Discussion

• Support - as the contributor.
  

  Supertech1 

  T

  C

  E
  02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support since I have already looked over this before. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - already discussed this and think it would be very beneficial to us all. Andrew ^talk 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Cool Idea --
  

  COLO

  
  02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - There are many beneficial aspects to switching and from the majority of what I've seen the major argument against this seems to be based on sentimental feelings, which only limits future potential.--
  Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}
  02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. That's all I'll say, since my computer is lagging, due to the size of the Yew Grove. Stinkowing _{(WHAT'S IN IT?)}
• Support - Sounds amazing. FTWinston! ^talk 02:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - OMG, you came up with this? You deserve some kind of trophy. I will donate any money to construct a wikia trophy and mail to you, lol. Very well done, an excellent contribution to our wikia. And congratulations to you. It appears very well done and flawless. Thanks.
  Bonziiznob ^Talk
  03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - As little as my opinion counts, having experience with moving a channel to a new server before and someone who's owned her own network in the past, I can say that this would be a major pain for all parties. Sure, it may seem like a simple matter of pointing java/CGI:IRC to the new server, but there will ALWAYS be people out of the loop or who simply will resist change. It's just a very difficult thing in general, and Freenode is a very nice, STABLE network, and the other wikias seem to be there. Freenode's famous amongst IRCers; why move? I don't even see that many people IN IRC a lot of the time, and moving to a new server would certainly not improve the number. Moving will not stimulate or complement growth; if anything, it will merely impede it. Also, I believe that only active IRC users should be commenting on this issue. If it doesn't affect you strongly...well, yeah. :/ --KittyKis, too lazy to login.
• Oppose - the "concerns" addressed here can all be argued.

• Won't we lose some of our IRC users that come here from other wikis? - Absolutely we will. The process of connecting to another server is not as simple as Supertech tries to make it. It's a pain in real clients, but just a bit of extra work connecting with a command is not all that we need to think about. We have MANY, MANY users who can only access certain sites because of school or parental controls. There is absolutely no way that I will support any decision the restricts certain users from entering our channel.
• What about our current channel ops—isn't it unfair to take away their power? - The answer given to this question did not even answer it. It still stated that the current ops could have their power taken away, or never instated, by the community. The community who barely even goes in the channel anyways - the place is always dead except for a few veterans.
• Do we really need a whole network? Our channel is sufficient. - If this server is going to be a wiki server, then we are responsible for all that happens on the network. If people are allowed to create their own channels, this will be impossible, and the administrators will be responsible. If something should happen on the freenode network outside of the #wikia-runescape channel, then we will not be held responsible. It is not possible for us to know what is going on in all of the channels all of the time.
• What about all of the services that Freenode offers? - Freenode has plenty of services. You also make no mention of what additional ones there will be.
• Freenode maintains our privacy. How do we know you will, too? - It is extremely easy to get a cloak and have your IP hidden on freenode. Frankly, I do not trust any server that is not well-established. Hence, this one.
• Freenode is secure. Won't the new network be less secure, as it has less staff members? - The DDoS attack did not harm anyone in any way, nor did it compromise anyone's security. The worst that happened was that everyone was disconnected for a few minutes, and netsplits happen on ALL servers. Do not try to make this seem like freenode's fault.

There is absolutely no reason for this switch. We have already changed channels once, on the same network, and that in itself was a pain in the ass. I don't understand why a certain two users feel that they are allowed to make such a radical change. I have zero doubt in my mind that the majority of users who will support this move have not been on IRC, and I have a sneaking suspicion that some only want to ensure they have some sort of power on the new server. Besides this being pointless, the biggest reason that I see for STAYING is that we are established where we are. Not all of our users come from the RuneScape Wiki. Not all of them play RuneScape. Those who never check the wiki are going to wonder what the hell happened to our channel, because we have many users who just pop in every few weeks from other channels such as #halopedia and #wikia. Those who cannot access anything other than the CGI wikia gateway to the freenode server will not be able to join the new server. And there are multiple users who are in this situation.

As a freaking amazing coincidence, Endasil happened to stop into the chat tonight, and I pointed him to this discussion. He did not want to post and become active for just one matter, he said, but allowed me to reiterate his comments here. First off, the benefit of freenode is that it is, surprise, free. There are hired staffers to do all of the work and upkeep for us. There is not begging required here to get a server. In addition, we won't all be left in the dust should the network provider decide to bail out once they stop wanting to carry our network. Another benefit of freenode is that there are many servers. If one should happen to go down, users are just redirected to another server. On a single server, we don't have this added feature.

Back to something else I oppose about this – the automated kicks and bans. Bots are not humans, bots are not all that intelligent. Bots will not assume good faith, and if a bot bans or kicks a user without an adequate reason, how are we to know what is right?

Also, have you lot read the RS:NOT policy? The wikia is NOT OFFSITE. What happens in IRC channels does not affect a user's status on the wiki, therefore the need to LOG every ban is not only too much work, but also going against our established and voted-upon policies.

My final reason for not moving does link back to wikia. When there are issues with the wiki, IRC is an INSTANT way to chat with staff members who can help us. In addition, it is not uncommon at all for uberfuzzy to come into the channel looking for an admin or a 'crat to try something out, or explain some problem on the wiki to him. If we change servers, we are going to be completely removed from the Wikia community. And then it's just not a community anymore. Christine 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd definitely stop coming on. Switching is a pain in the ass to do and just wouldn't be worth it. There's also a reason Runescape wiki is on a network that supports wikis. Besides, is a whole network for this really, really necessary? Justine 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Christine and KittyKis, very good arguments. Nearly every problem you mentioned was in the back of my mind when I designed the network setup, though, so we shouldn't have much in the way of migration problems. I'm on a mobile device, so I'm afraid I'll have to keep it short and elaborate later.

KittyKis, I've worked in the UnrealIRCd/Anope support channel for quite some time now, so I'm well aware of how difficult running a network can be. I've set up quite a few networks and know the Unreal source like the back of my hand, so we shouldn't have any trouble there.

Christine, your post was a bit of a read, but I'll do my best to respond with this tiny keyboard. First off, I'd like to point out that RS:NOT doesn't apply in the sense that you used it. This network will be owned and run by the wiki. As for the firewall, most school firewalls run one of several major firewall systems, all of which block this wiki entirely. (By the way, I love how you say MANY MANY only to go on to claim that the channel has few users, which is true.) I have already set up replacements for the IRC clients online designed to automate everything. A new or inactive user won't even notice the switch, as it will be seamless.

No, we should not just accept feedback from IRC users. Part of the goal is to make IRC a more usable feature. If what you're looking for is a channel with just your five or so regular users, then by all means, keep the Freenode channel for that purpose.

No, I can't promise you will retain your position of power, as it's not my decision to make. I am not searching for power myself, but rather, I am moving the power of decision making from your hands to those of the community. If you have done your job well and the community supports you, I have no doubt you will become an IRCop.

The number of users we receive from other wikis is, as you correctly described it, minimal. Once every few weeks someone might wander in. The second we start a network, however, we open up our community to groups that have more relation to us, such as clans. That means even more valuable contributors.

If I missed anything, I'll address it tomorrow. Kitty and Christine, thank you very much for your input. Insight is valuable, so I'm sure the entire community appreciates the time you spent together on IRC brainstorming a list of anything that could possibly go wrong. It's this sort of discussion that has earned this wiki its success. Thanks again.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That's too bad, Church; it won't be a different process to connect. I don't see how a "background" change would stop you, but that is your choice, and I won't argue against it. You're the halopedia user that drops in every few weeks, right?

Supertech1 

T

C

E

04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

........Do you even pay any attention when you are in the channel? First off, Justine is in the channel daily, more often than our RSwikia users. And she has consistently been in the channel everyday for well over a year. How can you comment that she only comes in every few weeks when you yourself have only been here for maybe 2 weeks? James is another user in the channel daily. Emosworld cannot access anything other than CGI. Nor can pantomimehorse. Nor Dtm or Stinko, nor a bunch of other users who are not able to use "real" clients.

In addition, way to say "oh don't worry, you'll still have op" to me in the channel, then completely change your stance when it comes to the wiki. I have NEVER had sole control over who gets power, nor am I the one to decide who gets it. All sysops, and only sysops get op. THAT was the community decision, THAT is how things function. We get new users to wander in daily, whether they remain is a different story, but also out of our control and NOT about to suddenly change if we change servers. Christine 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, CGI:IRC will still be available for access to the new network. Again, there will be no differences visible to the average user, at least at first. And by the way, Stinko was able to use pjIRC earlier today. And no, not all sysops have power; I checked the access list. Even those that do have varying amounts based on what you decide. My stance remains the same. As for the halo users, you are welcome to hang out on Freenode and chat with them. Just like Azaz said, tradition should not prevent us from moving forward. Other wikis use Freenode because it's easy to configure. We have the resources to do better. The community here is amazing and deserves the best; that is my only reason for this proposal. Christine, if your fear is of loss of community, I can assure you, our interests are identical: this can only help the wiki grow. If power is your concern, well... I suppose you'd be right to keep the Freenode channel. Whatever your motives, I assure you, success of this community will be the result of a dedicated network. And no matter what happens, I wish you and your IRC community the best of luck.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop assuming that all I care about is the power! I gave you a one and a half page word document on why we should stay. This change is absolutely unnecessary. As for the access list - you do realize that you can't give access to a damn name that isn't registered, right? Not all of our sysops use IRC, therefore they do not all have access. There is only one active IRC user who is NOT on that list, and I've already spoken with him as to why. In addition, *I* did not set the current access list! When freenode changed their services over the summer to flags as opposed to access levels, all of the conversions were left up to Skill and Endasil. So again, don't fucking accuse me if they aren't all the same. I am NOT the only one who can change the access list so I am NOT the only one responsible. The fact that I am listed as the founder - and I am NOT the original founder, either - does not mean that everything you find wrong in the channel is my fault. You come in here and after three weeks want to change everything? This is insanely suspicious considering we have no need to change servers. Christine 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious, indeed. Why, we should ban me immediately! ;)

Christine, I don't know why you take my rebuttals so personally, as this was meant to be a constructive discussion. I apologise if you feel insulted, but I think it's time that we upgrade. You've done a great job as founder, I'm sure; you've made some very loyal friends. But now it's times we put our emotions behind us and work towards bettering our community. I do not blame you for the problems with the channel. But, as you did point out, there are problems.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll forget about the edit conflict so this will still sound uber and dramatic >:D Ahem: I've been on wikia nearly two years, just as long on IRC everyday unless I'm away for the day. This is just something that's not mandatory that'd cause a pain in the ass. The channel already moved once which was a pain itself, but having to add a new network and have all this extra stuff open, seems like a complete disconnection from the wiki, wiki's community and the channel itself. This really isn't as simple as you're trying to make it seem, the move will still lose alot of regulars and cause a pain. Justine 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Justine; I must not have been on while you were active! I still fail to see how this will be a pain. CG:IRC and pjIRC will be nearly identical. If there were problems in the past they were caused by a disorganised or improper move. At first, the switch will barely be noticeable. For non-RS contributors, yeah, you will have to use our web client to connect or

get an executable. However, the number of users that we will gain from this renders any "fly-by" user losses insignificant. Our actual community will still remain intact, including the non-RS portion. 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - hate to change the subject but there is something I'm curious about. Super, would you mind explaining how we will still be able to use CGI for the "technically challenged" folks like me? Andrew ^talk 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Soldier. CGI:IRC is not controlled by freenode or wikia; it is a separate project. Anyone can set it up to connect to any network, so all I have to do is get it installed on the network's webserver, just as Freenode hosts pjirc on theirs.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentI too am wary of a newer wikian coming in and right away wanting to make a drastic change. I am not on IRC that frequently, but I have never had an issue. Why change something that is not broken?‎Atlandy 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Atlandy, you're caution is quite understandable. However, I can assure you, this change will be controlled by the community—not me. I know that doesn't mean much coming from me, so I'd also like to mention that I've been working closely with Soldier 1033 to develop this change. It is not just my idea: contributions have come from all over. I simply got to be the lucky once to announce it. ;)

Supertech1 

T

C

E

16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I have said, just two single users is no better than one. And you continue to refuse to answer my question. WHY? You keep saying it will bring in new users, but this is not true at all! HOW? It's going to be exactly the same situation as before, with a link in the sidebar.

Only NOW, we're going to be on some server that no one has ever heard of! Not only will we lose some of our old regualars, we'll also lose all of the people who just happen to stop in when they see the name of our channel on the wikia gateway page!

And for the THIRD time, there are some users who, due to restrictions on websites they can access, can ONLY use CGI:IRC. No matter what you say, pjirc will not change this! Freenode is NOT broken, there is NO reason to move! Christine 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentI understand that 2 people have been working on it, but it still does not answer why change? Christine has valid points especially about certain people not being able to access it. To me, it sounds like you want to move it to your server....when we have no issue with what we currently have. Kytti Kat also mentioned the host of issues we will encounter. It makes zero sense to change.‎Atlandy 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Christine, please, if you wish to constructively participate in this discussion, read and comprehend what the other side has to say. I have already stated (multiple times) that the new network will/does support CGI:IRC. In fact, the new network has better support for CGI:IRC than Freenode does.

Our channel is marked as secret: it does not appear in the Freenode channel list. Even if we made it visible, we wouldn't gain that many users. Freenode is huge, and our channel is quite, quite small. Unlike with channels, new networks get bombarded with users from all over (provided they are properly configured). We'll just register on SearchIRC and we're all set.

ChristineV, you're absolutely right: two users don't make the difference. It's the whole community that makes the difference. Our goal is to put IRC, a very versatile resource, into the hands of the community.

And let me reiterate this one more time: the new network will/does support CGI:IRC even better than Freenode. I know CGI:IRC is a major concern for many contributors, so I've ensured not only that the new network will support CGI:IRC, but that it will directly integrate the webirc protocol.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now what the hell are you on about? I never said that two users don't make the difference, and it's more than two anyways! The issue isn't CGI:IRC in itself, either. It's the URL that is going to be blocked by certain schools and home firewalls. -.- Christine 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - >_>... I don't care who does the change, where the change is to, whether or not I still have op powers, or anything like that. I can only use CGI:IRC. Every other method IRC causes either insane lag, a complete freeze (thus making me have to manually turn off my comp, which damages it over time), or an infamous gray box. It's good as it is. The odds of Freenode abusing their powers to see our personal information is as likely as Blagojevich getting any political position in Illinois. Chiafriend12 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please, before posting, read the updates. CGI:IRC will still be available and will not change. It will still look the same, it will still work the same, but it will connect to a different network. Freenode does not own, run, or even contribute to CGI:IRC; it's run by Blitzed, and the new network already runs several products from them, including the Blitzed Open Proxy Monitor. CGI:IRC will remain the primary method of connection even with the new network. Really, this is meant to be an informed discussion. When everybody's misinformed, it's just a bunch of miscommunicated mumbo jumbo that doesn't get anybody anywhere.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While I still think Christine put it best, I'll simply put "Don't fix what's not broken." I don't get on the IRC much anymore, but when I do it works fine. While your intentions might be great, we already have a working solution, no need to change everything to another working solution. 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've read the too and 'fro here, and on the IRC, and on talk pages, and I remain to be convinced of a pressing need for change, or that any benifits will outweigh the problems. I think the current system is fine as it is I'm afraid. Hurston ^{(T # C)} 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement

ChristineV and I spent some time discussing matters on IRC and finally came to a conclusion. After reviewing the new network, she agreed that it was suitable, but she did not want the link to the original channel to be removed. Rather, the new network's links will be added, and the CGI:IRC will remain for the old channel (it will no longer be the official channel, though). Links to both CGI:IRC and pjIRC will be added for the new network.

As some contributors are (rightfully) concerned about my intentions as I'm still rather new, we also agreed that ChristineV should be in charge of the new network. Any current admins that feel they would be able to contribute to the new network are welcome to receive IRCop permissions. From here on, though, IRCops must be chosen by the community.

Note: IRCops are different than channel operators. IRCops monitor all channels on the network, while channel operators only manage a single channel. All sysops will remain channel operators in #wikia-runescape on the new network.

Support - as contributor 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - per nom. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - per Spence. Andrew ^talk 02:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's good to see the arguing end. FTWinston! ^talk 02:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Instant 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Bonzii TehKittyCat^{Talk Wikian-Book} 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, there has only been support for the agreement. When do we call this concluded, and since the consensus seems to be for the new network, how should we go about making appropriate changes to the wiki? 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Abolish user of the month

I am sure many people are aware of some of the silliness that occured during january. For those that arent allow me to mention a little of it.

• People were PMed in game and asked to vote
• It was discussed on the RS Wiki chat
• Some of the votes seemed as much to be about one user not getting rather than one getting it.

All of this leads to my main point. There was too much focus and attention on this rather than where it should have been. I am not saying "omg this is all anyone cared about" because a lot of good stuff got made and fixed in January. But even more could have been if there was no attention on User of the Month. It was a popularity contest for at least some of the participants. And thats just wrong. Not all, just some.

It has been suggested before that this should happen, and I really hope the community sees this as a distraction we can do without. We can and should replace it with a section for Articles that need help. This has been proposed and supported before but has always seemed to fade away. Well this would be a great time to put that up on the front page. An article in need of lots of work would then get more notice, and would stay listed until its as good as any article of the month. Some would only take a few days, others (Summoning?) would probably take a while. But its a much better community focus that we could all take pride in.

--Degenret01 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In Addition - As a top candidate is last months UotM, I must say that all the above is true. It's sad when users are looking for recognition, and that is entirely not the point of this wikia. Now, let me justify my spot in this so that is does not come back to bite be in the rear later:

• I did myself speak about the UotM in the Clan Chat - I did not however solicit vote in any which way.
• As other users began to promote the UotM in their signature, I did aswell as I felt this was an unfare advantage...I later that day removed the link as it conflicted with my beliefs, a user should not self promote their own UotM

To continue, I must admit that the user of the month is becoming more of a popularity contest. The point of the user of the month was to recognize the great contributions a user has made, and to say thank you from the community, but as time has progressed the meaning has change. Lets talk about this with a bit of reference:

• Between a discussion with myself and other user here and here, we speak about users being solicited in game. This is an absolute disgust. Why are people asking for votes, it's arrogant and selfish.

• As many might know, me and Degenret were hoping for a tie. When my nominee left and I voted for Degenret it gave him the upper hand at one point, offering him the lead over my nomination. This here is a suggestion I received. Why on earth would I want to pull my vote to simply win? How is that fair to the editor or anyone else that is voting? Again, selfish...

• Cheating? - I'm not sure if this is true, but even if it is, who cares...It's not the point to gain recognition so if people need to cheat to win it's quite sad...and when it is getting to the point users thinks others are cheating it's time to stop.

• It got to the point I was not even allowed to scratch unqualified voters without being ridiculed. Please note that since this discussion occurred we has resolved any misunderstandings. The point I am trying to point out with this and this just proves that the trust in users to simply recognize great users is gone. This trust needs to be built up again.

• Users nominating themselves???

• Users began to promote their own UotM in their signatures (see above in my admissions... :( )

• If you would kindly scroll down on this page, to Degenret's section, you will also find a vote cast based on the influence of another user, not directly linked to anything about the User of the Month, or the user being voted for. The vote was simply cast as a revenge vote for something that was said to this user. THIS IS CRAZY! Since when do people vote because of something other then the great work and contributions of the user being nominated?

This is just to point out a few things I have experienced over the last month as being a candidate. Please note, that I do not support retiring this as it is a very affective means to recognize great contributors, I am simply saying that it needs to be thought over. This is a privileged, not a right. 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Support - As per above 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I uber support abolishing UOTM. FTWinston! ^talk 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Changed to Oppose - While I do support some of the things you said in the description, I still like having the UotM on the mainpage. It brings up morale and is a way of thanking users who have done a great job here on the wiki. I really don't think the featured user section would make other users feel demoted. Everyone is saying that "We need to focus more on the articles" when really, we already are doing that. The UotM isn't in anyway interfering with us making and bettering articles. This is what I am proposing. Is there anyway we could just add a new section to the mainpage concerning articles in need of help? That way we can have both the featured user section and the articles that need help section and there wouldn't be any problems. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is to remove the UotM, not to substitute it. It would be cool to have something like that, but the point is people are getting to wrapped up in being recognized that they are asking for it, etc... UotM is not what it used to be, it's a popularity contest anymore.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well how bout instead of getting rid of it completely, could we just do a major overhaul of all the rules and how it should work to avoid all of the "drama" and complaints and problems with it (like Andorin said)? -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 06:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - although you have very good points, a very small amount of users were affected by the "UOTM drama". In fact, I barely heard about UOTM both in the clan chat and on the wiki. Also, please don't take any offense to this, Degenret, but I do find it rather odd that you suggested this within an hour or so of becoming User of the Month. Andrew ^talk 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If I "hadn't won" then it may have looked like me being a sore loser. Too many people do too much work for one person to get recognized.--Degenret01 03:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you could have started this before voting had ended. Besides, that isn't why I'm opposing and didn't influence my opinion either. I have never heard of any problems with UOTM before January, so could it be that it is not the UOTM competition itself but certain nominees that caused the controversy? (not accusing anyone) If this is the case, which I believe it is, then I see no reason that UOTM cannot continue as it has since March 2007. Andrew ^talk 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that now that you "have won" it is safe to try to abolish it, since you can already claim you got it. And I can't say I find that impossible to believe either.. Christine 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to be mentioning it on my user page or putting up a little user box about it, and if we can get the other project going then my name will be off the front page within a day and a real wikia project going.. Way to assume good faith. Also, I discussed it with Bonzii on his talk page a few days ago. --Degenret01 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not right to put the spotlight on a single user. If UOTM is meant to give newbies someone to look up to, then they should check out the history for the featured article and find out who wrote the bulk of it. FTWinston! ^talk 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I have to agree that the original intention of this feature has been lost over time. I did not understand that fully in times past, however what i have seen it become is not healthy for encouraging new editors to join in this project. I would very much like to see this feature replaced with a Collaboration article, where new editors are invited to make something better. In regards to uotm, at the very least it should be removed from the main page. Any thing that goes on regarding uotm should likely be restricted to the User: space or at least outside of the main namespace, if people insist on maintaining this wiki-debilitating feature. This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy. As such i would like to see this feature no longer present on the main page. ~kytti khat– 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditional oppose. If there are problems with UotM, I don't think just tossing it out the door is the way to go when approaching those problems. Establish stricter standards. Examples:

• No self-nominations. You can vote for yourself, but you cannot nominate yourself.
• Do not solicit your, or anyone else's, nomination anywhere on the wiki. Anyone caught soliciting any nomination will be disqualified and, if the situation warrants it, given a block.
• Only a certain number of nominations per month. This would help control possible controversy.

Technically, the RS wiki is independent of the game itself and therefore the wiki can't interfere with in-game actions. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, the in-game chat channel for the wiki IS under the control of the admins of the wiki, as the admins tend to have rank there. As such, another standard should be to abolish discussion of UotM on either IRC or in the chat channel. As a matter of fact, perhaps banning UotM discussions from anywhere but the UotM page would be the way to go. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by your lord Andorin (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I appreciate your input. In opinion, I feel this would greatly impact the method of how the UotM is handled and viewed, and should be implemented in the future if the UotM is to return, but for now I feel the focus and concept of the UotM is gone and it needs to be re-established and it's purpose thought about in mind, not in policy. Removing this will allow users to appreciate that it is a privilege, not a right, and besides the point of the wikia is for the content, not the users. Let's focus more on the articles and the impact they have on the community as a whole rather then looking at the contributions of one.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless what additional rules and limitations are put on it, the mere fact that it denotes notoriety will be enough for many to find ways to needle around those rules in attempt at being noticed. Ever wonder how many sock puppets there are on any given wiki, or can be used outside of a wiki? If you're going to insist on keeping it, then you could at least support something more comprehensive in fixing the issue that has grown from this. By taking the feature off the main page the level of notoriety can be lessened and at least in that measure it would not be a major distraction from what this wiki's goals are, wouldn't you agree? ~kytti khat– 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said, and I do agree that if it is not abolished it should be removed from the main page in the least.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Very good points, and there is no really reason it needs to exist. The Wikia can continue it's way on without it. Jediadam4 ^(Talk) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We've had this discussion before. I never saw a good reason for deleting it. So, to fix some of the problems you stated, how about we make it so every user has to make a description on why they voted for the person (similar to RfAs). Then we wouldn't count the votes with bad descriptions, like for reasons you said. Yes this wiki can continue it's way on without it, but does keeping it really make it worse?  C Teng ^talk 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous. Two isolated incidents does not warrant instant abolition. That is complete insanity. I agree with Andorin on the restrictions, such as no self-nominations and no soliciting, and breaking said rules should result in a 1 day block, more for repeat infractions. Like a few above me said, it gives new users a person to look up to, and a general role model for the wiki. In short, I oppose this motion, and anyone who self-nominates of solicits votes should be reprimanded accordingly. Kevin-020 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Total Support - as per previous supports, notably kytti khat's "This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy". Also: 1. We have more than one contributor per month who would deserve that. Giving this "reward" to only one (obviously quite random) of them is simply unfair - and giving it to two is getting ridiculous (I guess the next steps are to give it to 3, then to more?). 2. Voting in this is a waste of a time which could be used to contribute to articles instead. 3. Having the oppose vote prohibited is just ridiculous: a vote where you can't say no? Are we in China? 4. Some editor(s) leave because the lameness of this feature makes them sick. At least that's what made me stop after my previous return, and that's what makes me bounce today too, after a few other edits I need for my closure. 5. Finally, this page is simply breaking RuneScape:All editors are equal. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support UOTM is pointless. TEbuddy 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While I agree that there was some silliness regarding the Uotm in January, I do not think that Uotm should be abolished because it is about thanking an active user for his/her contributions to the wiki. The person deserves mention and without the Uotm, there would be no way to do just that. I agree with C Teng's ideas on how to prevent such things from happening. To sum it up, a policy should be made to counter the problems instead of abolishing the Uotm. C.Chiam^{TalkShoutout!} 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean a policy as clever as the one saying you can't vote no? Since I almost already earned my Godwin point, I won't insist on the China comparison nor germanize it, but as Tacitus used to say, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

more commentary -- One thing I've already noticed in the past six months was the size of the so-called feature again outgrowing the size of the Article of the Month. This is just another indicator of the amount of vanity that goes into this feature, I was one to advocate taking it down a notch before and this is not an uncommon occurrence, this is a regular and ongoing happening. Regardless of how many rules are put on this "feature" it will continue to attract undue and needless attention, as it is already doing in this discussion thread, which in itself continues to move this Wiki away from it's reason for being. If we're only going to add more rules to this then first and foremost should be to move it off of the front page. ~kytti khat– 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY) January was just an uncommon occurance. That has happened, like, three times in the 20+ months that the UotM has been around. Though, there are things that could use changing.

• Voting for yourself. Seriously? That's pointless.
• Nominating yourself. If you're such a good user, someone else will do the nominating for you.
• Lengthy descriptions on the main page. A link to the userpage and a description is just assinine. If you want to know about the user, just click on the link to their userpage. Something like "Congratulations to Iamzezima9991234987 for being this month's User of the Month!" would work just as fine and use less space.
• Hype. The whole UotM process is treated like it's an honor. All you do is you get your name on a list and glory on the main page.

Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something. Chiafriend12 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you Opposing this or not? -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it look like? "Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something.". So yes, I am against abolishing it so quickly without trying to fix it first. Chiafriend12 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: UOTM isn't really pointless, but it makes it look like, eg February, Degenret01 is the only user that deserves to be featured. But there are many more users that can be recognized (Bonzi). Like Degenret said, we could better replace it with Articles that need help, or a weekly Poll or something.-- Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose What is the point of the User of the Month? It's not to say "this user is the best", "everyone should try to get their name on this list", or anything like that. The User of the Month is meant to give one special user each month recognition. That's it. And I find it darn sad that we can find something wrong with a system that only allows compliments.

We're here to work together as a team. We spend our time documenting a game all (or most of) us love. We don't get paid, and we don't become famous. We're volunteers. But, once in a while, it's important to point out that someone has made a special impact on our community. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in reverting vandalism and guiding users that we for get to point out when somebody does something right.

The point of the User of the Month is not to select one particular user as being the best. It's just a way for the community to point to someone and say, "Hey, thanks, you've really made a difference!" Yes, the User of the Month is most often just a thank you to a single contributor. But if it was given to more people, it wouldn't be as special.

Yes, I spend time thinking about who to vote for, and that time could be spent contributing to an article or reverting vandalism. But when I make that final edit—when I voice my support and say how someone really made a difference in my experience here, it feels like I am shaking someone's hand while wearing a huge smile and saying, "you're a special person". It's my way (and others') of saying thank you.

Nobody should feel left out. Nobody loses. Even if you think someone else is more deserving of recognition, remember the difference that the winner made. That contributor deserves a "hug" just as much as anyone else. Next month, maybe the person you voted for will get the most votes—but does it really matter? Just the fact that we take the time in our busy lives to simply say "thank you" is something to be proud of in and of itself.

To be honest, I don't care if people go around advertising their User of the Month nominations. Why? Because that's like walking up to someone and saying, "hey, you, say thank you to me NOW!" We all know that, and so we won't vote for such a nominee. Does someone who demands our thanks really deserve it? No.

There are flaws in every recognition system. There are always going to be people who feel left out or that they have been treated unfairly. But such people aren't grasping the true meaning of the User of the Month. Even if they had one, they wouldn't have felt it in the same way that the real winner might have. It's not a trophy, a badge, or a rank. It's a thank you card.

User of the Month is one of the few reminders on this wiki that it's important to thank our contributors for the differences they make. It forces us to take a step back from the reverting, banning, and nit-picking, giving us a chance to see all of the good in our community.

I look forward to giving my virtual handshake this month and for many months to come, both to nominees and winners. I'm not looking to get nominated myself; I would miss the opportunity I have to thank yet another hard-working volunteer. And, hopefully, the rest of our community also feels the same satisfaction each month, regardless of whom is voted the User of the Month.

22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Degenret01, put the fact that you were chosen as a User of the Month on your user page. You deserve it; you have put a lot of time and effort into this wiki. Think of it as my thank you—the community's thank you. We appreciate every single edit you make, and this community wouldn't be the same without you. That's what we were saying when we chose you.

Supertech1 

T

C

E

22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Now EVERYONE pay attention! This guy understands the true meaning of the User of the Month. He is exactly right. It's not about the recognition okay, it's about the thank you. It about commemorating the well efforts of another editor, someone who has dedicated their time to aiding this wikia and helping it to achieve it's full potential. If we could all understand this, the User of the Month would mean so much more, to everyone. Yield what Supertech has just said, because it is the true understanding and point. Please note: If we can work to make this UotM about not receiving recognition based on fame or popularity, or asking for votes, advertising yourself, etc, and actually about the recognition of a user`s contribution, then I hope this feature stays. It would be nice to create something however in addition to this to focus more on articles (as has been recently mentioned), but if we can understand the true purpose then their would be no reason to remove it.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Back in the old days.... UotM was always about a thank you, not a popularity contest. Editors should be chosen for their time, effort, and dedication. There are similar characteristics that should be looked at during RFA's (which we have all witnessed people thanking others for support votes and asking about opposes). My vote was totally influenced against people who advertise for it in both instances‎Atlandy 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Biggest oppose that anyone can oppose too. - Taking away UOTM is like taking away all the articles on the wiki. It's an essential part. It's a gift. A gift that let's the user who won, know that they have a done a good job. It's very important to the wiki. -- 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal

With permission from Degenret01, we have decided to close this proposal and re-open a new one which would fundamentally change some rules to the User of the Month. Please comment your support or oppose to this new policy addition.

New Rules to Add to the UotM:

• Candidates may not self-promote their own nominations, be it in their signatures, talk page, userbox, etc.
• Candidates may not vote for their own nomination
• Absolutely no in-game advertising about UotM by candidates, be it in PM, Clan Chat, etc. If this occurs, screenshots of chat may be used to provide grounds to disqualify the candidate.
• All votes must be directly related to the Candidate and their contributions. Voters must explain their vote.

Proposed Changes to the Set-up:

• User of the Month template will only state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or

• User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or

• User of the Month template removed from mainpage. User of the Month will not be displayed on site notice. User of the Month will be moved to a separate page.

Please discuss these possible changes now. Move to abolish the UotM has been withdrawn. Please keep this open until 1 week prior to March UotM. Any changes will occur beginning of March.

07:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Support I support these new rules, and move for Option 2: User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month" 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

100% Support - I have heard enough fighting, heated debates, and "no, me!"s in the CC to decide on this issue. Jediadam4 ^(Talk) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support as long as we keep UotM. I think we should have a link on the Main Page saying "Congratulations Example," and link it to the separate page you suggested, giving a longer congratulations, like what we have now.  C Teng ^talk 12:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - per C Teng 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - If a user fails to abide by rules, then user's vote should be disqualified.  Eternalseed   20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm glad the UotM is still on the mainpage. I would like the first option stating we keep the template and we just state "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month". Scratch that... I would want the option explained by C Teng. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - per C Teng. Link to a separate page with a longer description. Andrew ^talk 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support all except the last proposed change. The purpose of User of the Month should be to highlight users' contributions so that other editors can see some of the best our wiki has to offer. Simply saying "User X won" on the main page or sitenotice would defeat this purpose and reduce UOTM to a simple popularity contest, which seems to be what we are trying to avoid. Getting rid of the feature completely would be a much better option than turning it into a popularity contest. Dtm142 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose UTOM, support changes to current rules Get rid of UOTM, all it does is cause problems and take up space on the main page. TEbuddy 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and total support Ah. Finally an end to that conflict. Kevin-020 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that this feature will be kept, but I accept that this is what the community wants. One additional rule that would have stopped some of the nonsense should be "Voters must have 50 Mainspace edits". Really, 50 is not a hard number to achieve. It really isn't.--Degenret01 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Degenret, the old rules aren't being abolished, such as the 50-edit to vote rule. These are just additional rules. Andrew ^talk 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like the rule for voting to be 50 mainspace edits instead of 50 edits not including talk pages.  C Teng ^talk 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should be implemented immediately. No reason not to, there is plenty of time left in the month for all voters to get their contrib count up.--Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding explained votes, I would like anyone in favor of that feature to think about this for a minute. Ok, 20 seconds then. The nominator is already going to list positive attributes of the nominee, or they wouldn't be a nominee. Many/most of that persons supporters are most likely going to agree with those reasons. So really just a "support" and your sig should be sufficient. Or are you suggesting that we judge the reasons behind a vote? That could get so ugly so fast. Keep it simple. --Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be like an election if we did it that way, which is completly unbiased. In personal opinion, if it is constructive support about the well contributions of another user however, I think it would be very rewarding to hear from another about what they have done good that deserves this vote.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you going to "judge" their votes? What if you don't feel their opinion is good enough? DQ the vote? This is extremely unreasonable--Degenret01 07:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I Support the rule changes but I am Neutral about set-up changes. I find UOTM advertisements everywhere and I think it is something your earn, not campaign for. I find that even mentioning how a person is, sadly causes an entire "war". The changes to set-up to me make it seem to not give them the congratulations they deserve, but I see the changes as taking away the reason to go out and campaign instead of getting out there and doing what is right and earning it. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work and our current system does not reflect it. - TehKittyCat^{Talk Wikian-Book} 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Possible Rule:

• 50 Mainspace edits replaces 50 Edits not including talk pages
• Only 1 vote per voter per month

Anyone oppose? 17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace edits as a rule can be troublesome, as it is only shows the number of edits a person has made. A user can easily make 50 minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) in a short span of time. Why don't we increase of amount of edits, so that only active users will be able to vote? Maybe 100 or 200 edits?

Anohter suggestion is to convert "User of the Month" to "List of Notable users" and just list the users who have contributed significantly to the wiki. (What is significant? I really don't know.) But, at least, this will eliminate the need to select brand a new UotM every single month. Personally, I'd prefer to see this feature removed...   az ^talk   21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I Fully Support and Comment, I am tired of seeing people vote multiple times and having a main space requirement will be good for having informed voters. I personally, like 75 or 125 edits as the requirement for the number of edits. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work. - TehKittyCat^{Talk Wikian-Book} 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1 vote per voter So the vote wont affect who wins, but it does let people know that the voter recognizes the work that they have done. As a feel good gesture. Lets not have rules rules for the sake of having rules, just make ones we need to keep it fair and from getting crazy.--Degenret01 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for UOTM Changes

Remove self-nom. If it's about a user getting thanked, the user themselves shouldn't be asking for thanks. That's rude.

If this means that we don't get a UOTM on some occasions, then so be it, clearly no-one put in the effort that deserves being thanked for.

King Runite1 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a rule against it. FTWinston! ^talk 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is already a rule. Thanks for you contribution though ;)

Bonziiznob ^Talk

19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion - The new rules and changes have been added to the User of the Month Criteria. 15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)