RuneScape:Yew Grove

The Yew grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposals. It serves as a way for anyone to get involved without having to find the relevant discussion page. Messages should be left on this page, not on the talk page.

What this page should be used for:
 * Policy proposals or changes
 * Discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM)
 * Changes to significant wiki features.
 * In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in.

What this page should not be used for: __NEWSECTIONLINK__
 * Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
 * Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
 * Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
 * Discussions that belong on an article's talk page.
 * Anything that does not have a wide impact.

Crackdown on certain policies
I posted this in the forums, but NO ONE'S given me a single suggestion, so I'm placing it here. I want answers. Now. Before I go insane.

"I have been asked no fewer than SEVEN times by (mostly) noobs as to why their "images and pages" were deleted. All of these files, regardless of type, were deleted because:


 * In the case of an image, it was personal, or...
 * In the case of an article, it was worthless trash.

'''Yet people keep asking me as to why their things are being deleted. It's severely annoying, and I want to put an abrupt end to it. ALL OF IT. If I have one more person that asks me a question like that, I will start handing out blocks for ASKING the damn'd question.'''

'''Thus, I am proposing a stricter policy to our article creation, especially image uploading. I suggest that, when a new user registers, they must READ the rules, one-by-one (so they don't feel tempted to skip the whole thing), before being able to complete registration. I also believe we should revise RS:Granularity to include everything that doesn't have an impact on RS. (Currently, I see only non-interactive scenery as part of this policy; Chiafriend made a non-RS related article "Tracy West"; I believe that sort of thing should be included)'''

'''Image uploads are beginning to be a problem. I have just recently deleted a user's PERSONAL images. The problem is that people OBVIOUSLY "haven't heard of ImageShack or PhotoBucket" [/sarcasm]. Well, of COURSE they've heard of it! But isn't it much easier (and lazier) to just make it a wiki image? Thus, I believe we need to crack down on it big-time.'''"

OK, now as for such changes...

First off, the rules-before-registration. Is it possible to change the registration process so that a potential user must read the rules one-by-one (so they don't whizz by them and not care) before entering their account data? If so, I suggest we do that. We'll possibly get a lot less new users uploading their personal images. In fact, it might slice down the vandlism more than I'm currently foreseeing.

Another thing I suggested in that forum post is the RS:Granularity policy be revised so that it SPECIFICALLY states what is article-worthy and what is not. I see many not-worthy articles being written anyway, from "Tracy West" to "Winch". We don't really have to do a crackdown on violaters; such articles are few and far between. That reminds me: the current RS:Granularity policy only has ONE ARTICLE in its list. That's it: ONE. We need to update that crap more...

Which brings me to the last problem: Image uploads. They. Are. Misunderstood. We NEED to crack down on that more! I'm seeing too many instances where I they upload images that I delete, only for me to get a torrent of crap on my talk page about "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1"...Pathetic. I'm NOT going to tolerate people asking me why I've deleted their stuff. If I have to change my way of doing things, like telling them EVERY time for EVERY personal image that EVERY noob uploads, fine. But until we get somewhere with this, I won't be reminding anyone anymore to not do such crappy things.
 * Awesome idea, I hate seeing some personal or crappy page on the namespace. 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude you did that like 5 times with your image... Christine TalkFlickr 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if he did, after you learn how to do it properly, watching someone else do it wrong can piss you off, and don't tell me that isn't the case., 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (i did it too now it pisses me off :P)
 * Noobs will never read the rules and so proposing such a change will create almost no difference from what it was initially. 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with personal images. The kind of articles you were mentioning, I understand why. Though for images, I see only one reason why not to allow them. What reason? "It uses up server space.". There is no limit to server space. "Using up server space" uses up an unlimited resource. I don't really see a problem with that. I do understand why non-RuneScape images would be deleted. Being off topic, and all. But for personal images, like an image of your character, an image of you getting a certain level, they are on the topic of the wiki: RuneScape.
 * Tracy West has the same connection to RuneScape that Jagex does. Jagex wrote the code to RuneScape. Tracy wrote the official book. If "Tracy West" is a "non-RS related article", the "Jagex" is too. 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving past how bad of an analogy that was, and how fallacious an argument it was that you just made, there is more than one reason not to allow personal images. This site aims to be a professional, wikified alternative to guide sites such as runehq and tip.it.  It is not a forum, and it is not a fan sandbox.  Everything that gets added to the Image repository belongs to this wiki and we're therefore putting our brand on it.  What does it look like when somebody puts some non-relevant, silly image on the site, and the admins don't delete it?  It reflects on the character of the site itself.  Furthermore, everything has a limit, especially server space.  Just because there may not be a published limit, that doesn't mean Wikia couldn't shut us down for not being responsible with the free space they give us.  We owe it to them to be good stewards of the resources they give us.
 * Also, there are plenty of free alternative image hosting sites available - if someone isn't able take the time and effort to upload the image and refer to that url from here, what's the chance that they'll bother adding the meta-information we want for images here, like categories, copyright usage, transparency and using correct file formats? The "proper" images we have already need a lot of work to clean up, let alone adding to the problem with hundreds of user images. Pointy 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is to add "color" to a user's personal page, and if some additional image ought to be allowed or not. I've run into edit wars with admins over allowing any image that is not directly copied or somehow extracted from the Jagex webpages... which IMHO is perhaps going a little over the top.  I tried to add an image of the New York Stock Exchange to the GEMW page stictly for some atmosphere, and it was not only deleted, but the deletion reverted and then deleted again.  Most other wikis, noting in particular even Wikipedia, have allowed images a more personal nature on their user pages without getting hyper paranoid about suitability.  This isn't to say that a whole gallery of images ought to be permitted, but I fail to see the harm in allowing some sort of personal image as long as it is tasteful (aka not pornographic) and kept at very low numbers, like at most one or two... and used on user pages.  Allowing this isn't going to kill wikia and overload the servers... nor do I see Wikia complaining here to eliminate this sort of incidental image uploading.  Wikipedia's main issue is copyright status... which is something that should be of concern here as well even as most of the images are copyrighted by Jagex and go way beyond even United States fair use legal concepts.  If we were really paranoid about copyright issues, 99.99% of all of the images currently on this project would have to be deleted.--Robert Horning 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's against allowing people to put (appropriate) personal images on their user pages. The issue is more about where those images are stored - whether it's on the wiki or whether we ask people to host them elsewhere and then link to them. The concern I have is with having to wade through large numbers of personal images to try and work with the 'legitimate' images - things like adding transparency, categorising images, finding unused files and so on will all be made harder by having to work around large numbers of personal images that would clutter up the wiki. Pointy 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with storing a "limited number" of personal images like this? To "sort" through the images, all that would really be needed is some sort of tag or category to label the image for "personal use" or something that is used on a user page.  While whole galleries should be prohibited, a modest number certainly could be used and uploaded to the wiki itself... copyright issues notwithstanding.  It does get into copyright issues, which is something this project should be worried about anyway.  Most of the images on this website can claim fair-use authority due to the fact that it is derived from screen shots of the game itself.  My question would then be raised here.... in your opinion what would be some examples of acceptable images that aren't copyrighted by Jagex?  --Robert Horning 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that users should read the rules. However, just asking once why their image was deleted doesn't warrant an instant block. If they're being rude, like doing that "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1" thing you mentioned above, then yes, that should get a block, and if asked repeatedly, then yes it should, but not just for asking once. That might be considered abuse of admin power. Butterman62 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Starting new indent) I agree with having users read the rules (if possible). However, I dont' quite understand your argument. You want us to make it so users can be blocked for asking why their images were deleted? If that's what you're asking, then no, they shouldn't, unless they repeat it to the level where it becomes spam. Or are you asking for us to make policies more strict so users can't even create articles or upload images that aren't DIRECTLY related (like Chia said about the article he created)? In that case, I wouldn't agree. We already have a policy about having fakes/personal images (whether IRL or just ingame images of you pwning your friends). It doesn't need to be any stricter than that, although I agree that someone uploading an image of their uncle, who works for Jagex and isn't really that noteable (they have hundreds of employees) would be wrong. Still, I don't see what you want done... There isn't much to be done. 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I haven't been too active in a while, but here's my slant on it all. I don't think that it would be conceivable to think that even attempting to force people to read the rules would result in them actually reading them.  I don't feel like going through all the rules and agreements that every single website makes you check when you join them.  I also think that it wouldn't be possible to force them to do so.  Also, blocking them for not understanding the rules isn't really a good reason either, just be patient and show them the right way to do things.  If you're not willing to be helpful, especially as a Sysop, maybe you shouldn't be one.  At the same time, I think that since images are really the issue, if it's possible to prevent anyone from uploading images except those who have either had an acocunt for a certain amount of time, or people that hte sysops have "unlocked" the privilege for, that would be a better situation.  I don't know if that would be possible, but it would be a suggestion.  The issue in the past was that suddenly we weren't allowed to have personal images (RuneScape related even, characters, etc), when before we could.  A replacement solution was given, we can use free image servers, like imageshack, photobucket, etc.  So that problem has been solved.  NO images uploaded on the wiki servers that are not RS related and used in an article.  All other images on the site need to be loaded through an outside source (Photobucket, etc).  We are not opposed to having those other images (although they need to only be on a personal page, and within our image guidelines, no porn, etc.).  If it's possible to let sysops determine who is able to upload images (maybe with the exception of those personal images, since they aren't uploaded anyways), I think that would be an ideal solution.   23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning Vandals
Okay, so the point I'm bringing up is warning (a set number of times) vandals before blocking. All editors are equal and should be teated equally; however, there are both pros and cons with this proposal. But rather than bring those points up, I want to make a compromise. We could try first time blocks for the convenience of admins, with warnings simultaneously. If the vandalism occurs even after both have taken effect, another block should take place with an extended amount of time. There needs to be consistency in blocking as well as more effective methods. Or, perhaps a user could think of a rating system for how long a block should last and what type of message they should receive.

e.g. the number represents severity out of a score of 10. If they exceed a specific number (probably 10), a block will take place. Less will result in a warning. Though, these ratings are my own and hypothetical.


 * Blanking pages. (8)
 * Posting offensive material, whether it be images or words. (5)
 * Contributing nonsense. (6)
 * A language other than English is added. (6)
 * False or deceptive information is being added to an article. (4)
 * Personal attacks on a user. (8-9)
 * Content which encourages breaking the 15 game rules. (8)
 * Advertising in any form (aside from websites listed under "External Links" which relate to the article that it is being put in) (7)
 * Articles about players. (6)
 * Impersonating another user. (7)
 * Creating pages and adding random nonsense to them. (5)

As you can see, pretty much anything more than 2 offences will result in a ban. I need commentary and am leaning toward admins and bureaucrats as this apllies to them. Maybe the amount of points over 10 represents the number of days the block will stay. That could work, but more suggestions and fine-tuning is necessary. 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think any obvious vandalism deserves an instant block. Inserting swears, offensive words or images, putting crap and spam into pages, etc. Blanking a page only if it's more than one, it's possible that just one was an accident. Articles about players I don't think deserve a block unless it's repeatedly created or it's insulting or breaks anything I listed prior. That's all I really feel like typing out now, maybe I'll respond to other points later once more people chime in. Christine TalkFlickr 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Christine. I also instant block removing a lot of content and replacing it with 'OWNED' or whatever. Also obvious false info such as 1 gp for rune gear or 1,000,000,000 gp for a bucket in an Exchange page get instant blocking.  These vandals know what they are doing is not right and deserve instant blocking. Most anons and users do a good job editing and help improve the wikia.  Chrislee33 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins must still be able to exercise personal discretion first and foremost - anything else should be for guidance only. I'd support a policy giving general advice for ban lengths, but I think a formal 'scoring card' will add a lot of complications to the process. In some cases it could even prevent admins from banning someone who is deliberately vandalising but is keeping it just below whatever threshold is set for a permanent ban. Pointy 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how this policy would only apply to admins and bureaucrats, it's up to you guys to decide what you feel will be the most effective way to deal with vandalism. If instant blocking is the most effective way to deal with it, then shouldn't the banned template lead them to our code of conduct? It's simple and not too hard. At this point there are quite a few admins who block first-time offenders but I think as long as some standard policy - just about anything that works and is official would satisfy me. Come to think of it, does anyone here have the programming skills to create a vandal fighting bot? If anybody has seen Cluebot's work in action, it's pretty useful. 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * take a hydrogen bomb, multiply its effectiveness by 27, and you have cluebot.
 * I remember reading something about Cluebot working on a point system that looks for certain words and expressions in the page text. I'm almost sure the algorithm is published somewhere, so it would be relatively easy to duplicate. However, a few modifications could be made, as vulgar language will never be in a legitimate article here, while on WP that isn't the case. Skill 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Source code is posted on that page too. Skill 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * vandalism to item prices can be difficult to detect. any chance our "ClueBot" will be able to detect that vandalism (assuming it's created)?
 * Perhaps if too many digits are listed, the bot would put a botted message on the CVU? That would locate something like someone putting "10000000000000" or so as an item's price on an "Exchange:" page. 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there could be a notification somewhere (CVU is great) if the price is outside the 5% a day range normally allowed by the GE, and maybe an automatic revert if the price is over, say, 10 million, with exceptions for items that are truly worth this much. Other edits that look suspicious but are not definitely vandalism could be reported there too, for that matter. Skill 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh Earthere, from that statement, is a hydrogen bomb an effective solution? I feel that I missed the implication. :| 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A Hydrogen Bomb is an effective solution. The question is, to what problem?  I think Earthere was praising the bot, either way.  As for my feelings on this subject, I don't disagree on any particular point, I'm more just not big on institutionalizing our ability to give out blocks.  My gut says that if we create a point-based system, nobody will pay attention to it anyway.  I don't really see the need for such a point system...is there some pandemic of unfair blocking going on?  I've always thought that our judgement has been pretty good at discerning when we should assume good faith or when someone was obviously out to hurt the wiki.  Remember, breaking the rules is always either accidental or intentional, and in my experience, about 90% of the time, it's obvious whether or not the vandal was intentional in whatever they did.

Update to the user treatment policy
I'm pretty sure none of us like to be cussed at. I just remembered a run-in with another admin, where the other admin called me several bad things, but because it wasn't on the wiki, it wasn't punishable. Now, if this was done in a message to me on my talk page, the person would have lost their admin powers and would have been blocked for a month or two at the least.

So, what I'm proposing is that the user treatment policy is extended to the game itself between wikians, but loosened. On the wiki, if, let's say, me and a random user got in an argument and started yelling at each other "NOOB!" and such, we'd be in trouble. But in-game, that happens all the time, and like half of the community would be banned for personal attacks if that was not permitted. More unacceptable things, like calling others "whore"s, "douche"s, "retard"s, "gay", would be unallowed if this were to be passed.


 * What I just said in a nutshell:


 * "Noob!"
 * On the wiki: Not really allowed.
 * In-game: Allowed.
 * "Whore!", "Douche!", "Retard!", "Gay!"
 * On the wiki: Not allowed.
 * In-game: Not allowed.

Users can get away with verbally attacking another wikian in-game and not be punished (if they get a blackmark(s), they can always appeal and say "good bye" to it), but still do the same damage. Discuss, comment, recommend and all. 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't enforce this. "He said this, she said that" but no proof. Don't even say screenshots, as I showed those before and got crap for them. What a person does in-game isn't wiki-related. Anyone in RS can be ignored, and that's the only thing to do. I have even mentioned this before to sannse, and she said that all we can do is ignore. Unless it extends to the wiki, we can't do anything to punish users. Christine 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What about if it happens at an official wiki event? [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png]] 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, wikia does not sponsor or plan the event, so it really isn't wiki-related in my opinion. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but I am saying that we really have no right to dictate how people act in-game. Christine 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't all of those words blocked by the RuneScape censor anyway? 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, yes, but it's quite easy to bypass the censor. 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrative action should be limited to the admin's sphere of authority. Making wiki admins responsible for users' actions elsewhere, which they have no power to independently confirm, is not a viable situation. If ignoring is not sufficient for you, and blackmarks are being revoked on appeal, your best options are to complain to a higher in-game body, to leave the game, or both.
 * If in-game sanctions such as exclusion from wiki-related events are being considered, I think it would be reasonable to require the complaining user to first prove that they are not a whore, douche, retard or gay, given the seemingly large population of these groups within online gaming communities. Documented consultation with their mothers might form acceptable evidence. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

not too long ago I was harrassed by two RSW vandals via private chat. I've also been flamed for my edits on a couple occasions, and a bunch of other wiki-related stuff happened. no offense or anything, but I shouldn't have to put up with this bull****.
 * just to clarify that was just a comment, not a support or oppose

As was established by RS:NOT, what happens in the game stays in the game. True, it's possible that they can appeal and have the marks lifted, but there's nothing more that can really be done. I fail to see what effect this will have, even if implemented, on conversations in private chat, as there is no way to prove who said what unless there are external trusted witnesses. (Evidence can easily be faked.) The occasional incident that might take place on public chat is an exception, but seeing how more people probably saw it, and more abuse reports are probably sent, this negates the concern over no punishment being given for the most part. Skill 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to go there. What happens in-game isn't simply out of admins' realm of authority, it's none of our damn business. It would be like an American cop coming up to Canada and arresting me for downloading music. It's not his jurisdiction, I'm not under his country's rules and, as I've said, it's none of his damn business.
 * Exactly I agree with everything. But I never see anyone in game anyway. This doesn't really apply to me but I wanted to show my support. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chicken how do you agree with everything? You can't be for AND against the proposal. --Degenret01 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree. If I went in game and Tesfan called me a noob, then I called him a noob back, and he called me gay and I got screen shots of it all happening, then Tesfan would be blocked? First of all, screenshots aren't exactly accurate. Unless you work for the government and test videos in court to make sure they are real, then I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell the difference between a screenie and a fake. Second, why is it the wiki's buisiness what happens between me and Tesfan in game? I got into an incident in school where I called my friend a name outside of school and the next day we both got detention. Now why did I get in detention? Because the school is nosy and sticks their noses into other peoples' buisness. If this rule was passed, the wiki would be like my school. I really don't think the wiki should be punishing people for what they say ingame, even if it is something like "whore" or "mother fucker". The wiki should only punish people for what they say either on the Wiki forums or on the wiki. If it's on IRC the user should be kicked. Btw sorry if I brought up an old topic, I haven't read the entire thing =). 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said taking a screenshot. If anyone was around in the Wiki's faking days and remembers how often I made fakes, I could easily frame somebody and make it look real. I meant something like mass witnesses (e.g.: a WikiFest), or being caught on film (e.g.: someone recording an event, like a WikiFest). The WikiFest (see where I'm going?) is like a school field trip. You're not at school, but you're at something hosted by the school. And Ilyas, assuming that you're example of school detention really happened and wasn't just an example, were you on your school's campus, near it, far away, or wherever?
 * Anyway, if you, the reader, haven't got what I'm trying to say, this would only apply at wiki-hosted events, like the WikiFest. 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Wiki isn't like a school. It's not a club, and it's not an organization.  It's a database with editors.  The role of sysop isn't to play babysitter or to be the leaders of some club.  We're simply here to protect the Wiki.  So as long as a user isn't harming the wiki, what business is it of ours?  None.  If a user is bothering you in game, block them...it's a pretty simple strategy that works for all non-wiki users...why should it be any different here?
 * Replying to Degenret, I'm supporting this. OPPOSE I mean, oppose. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Chia, I was 1 mile from the school at my house. Endasil, the Wiki would be the same as the school in this situation, they wouldn't be able to punish people for things they do outside of school (or Wiki) but yet they are. 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this. It's impossible to enforce this and easy to fake. To be honest, I would actually prefer if users settled their personal arguments and clashes in private chat as opposed to on the wiki where it can disrupt the community. Ingame, you can easily solve it yourself by adding the user to your ignore list, kicking them from clan chat (if applicable), reporting them (if applicable), or doing all three. What a user does ingame is none of our business. There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the Wikians. Dtm142 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking earlier. We are not really attached to RuneScape at all. Our rules are not set by Jagex; they are set by Wikia staff. So, yeah, we shouldn't enforce rules anywhere outside the wiki. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png]] 11:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Glitch articles & images
Ok, these are really bugging me. RuneScape is not WoW. We all know that. We don't need the reasons why, however we need to focus on graphics. We know RuneScape does not have great graphics. The sane players ignore it, and accept that nearly every item or piece of scenery will have issues once in a while. But what everyone needs to realize, is that these aren't "glitches." They're graphical issues. So some of these bs "glitch" articles are just graphic abnormalities. Someone standing in a wall? Yeah, you can do that nearly anywhere. We are not going to document every one of those. Someone wearing a bedsheet at Pest Control? Yeah, that's a glitch, because it was only supposed to be possible to wear it in Port Phasmatys. Carpet rides in Draynor, glitch. Something that "caused players to lean in an unusual way"? No. Honestly, what is the point of that? Does that even interest you in the least? I think we need to get rid of all graphical "glitch" articles and images. Christine 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Christine for same reason.
 * I don't have any real position on this. I kind of like the idea of including these things just as "sidebar" articles, as in, special/common interest things.  They make me laugh.  Sure they're to be expected with new updates, but what's the harm in keeping them around?  I would understand perhaps getting rid of ones that have been fixed and were also not notable (such as the leaning glitch), but for ones that are still active, I say why not include them?  Maybe someone will have fun with it.  The other day I was woodcutting for the first time in a few years, and a guy went up to a tree, did the cut emote and immediately cut down the tree (the axe animation didn't take place).  The tree looked like it fell down as a result of the guy clapping, and I thought it was funny.  Maybe if you posted a few more examples of ones you thought should be deleted, I could form a better opinion...
 * Accually, a glitch causing players to lean in an unusual way does sort of interest me. I don't see anything wrong with those glitches, as long as they are glitches, they should stay in the article. http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc45/C_Teng/White_party_hat.png C  Teng  17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Christine is right. Although they can be considered "glitches", since they are faults in the game graphics, although that depends on how you define "glitch", there are too many to document and they aren't really of much interest. Perhaps we shouldn't delete them, but just merge them into the article they belong in? I mean they are worth some notice, but not an entire page of their own. Maybe a sentence or two in the appropriate article. 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Causing players to lean in an unusual way is merged with Glitch. 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should merge everything from Category:Glitches and errors into the Glitch article, with the exception of the World 111 and Party hat duplication glitches. Seriously, look at this. Christine 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that should be merged, at least. 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean if there was a certain item that had a graphic error in it (like the Dragon Kite) then we shouln'd mention it in the glitches article but rather in the Dragon Kite article (just an example). 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting rid of CVU
The CVU page is a great page with great intentions, but is it really needed? Tell me, if a user wants to revert vandalism, can they not just do it themselves? Perhaps we can create a page to tell users what to do in case of vandalism, or just turn the CVU page into that, and they can just tell a sysop on their talk page so that the vandal can be blocked. I'm not against the CVU, and it's a good page, but it's not entirely necessary. What are talk pages for? Perhaps instead of reporting vandalism on CVU, there'll be a page giving the names of sysops (similar to CVU) and telling users what to do when they spot vandalism. Having a whole page where people can report vandalism is kind of useless, seing as they can... 1-Revert it themselves and 2-Ask a sysop on their talk page or on RS to block the vandal. They can even leave a message on the vandal's talk page asking them to stop! I'm not entirely against the Counter Vandalism Unit, and if we decided to keep it that would be ok, but I'm just asking the community to see what they think. It would also encourage users to take action and deal with vandalism by themselves. If that happened, the amount of vandalism we get might decrease and more regular users would be trained to deal with vandalism. We wouldn't need sysops reverting/blocking IPs every hour. Again, CVU is a great page and it's worked towards helping stop vandalism for over a year and a half now, but letting users take action into their own hands and leave a message on a sysop's talk page would also be a great alternative. Please discuss 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The CVU isn't a place for sysops to find vandalism they have to revert, it's a place for users to list what vandals have to be blocked. The users, 99% of the time, DO revert the vandalism. Every sysop should, and probably do, check the CVU when they log in to see what vandals haven't been dealt with, that way the users don't have to worry about finding an ACTIVE admin, someone who is actually on at that time. The CVU tells us who to block in the case that an admin isn't around, because normal users can't block, and vandals have to be punished. Also, I don't see how posting on the CVU isn't "taking action into their own hands." It's no different than posting on a sysop's talk page. Christine 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Posting on a sysop's talk page does exactly the same thing, except why have a page if it isn't really needed. I think when Shadowdancer created it it was more needed than it is now. I suppose you're right and it's better for everyone to see what's happened rather than posting a message on one sysop's talk page, but I have seen instances where people have posted something on CVU and not reverted it themselves, but maybe that's just my experience, since I don't even check the CVU (but it is on my watchlist). 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is more needed now than it was when Shadowdancer created it due to more vandals, more edits in the recent changes, and more admins that are active (and inactive). It is harder to see the vandalism in the recent changes because they move more quickly than they did then. Dtm142 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, it does the same thing, yet this is more likely to get noticed than some message on a sysop's page that isn't necessarily on at the time. I say it stays. Christine 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you post on a sysop's talk page, 1 person notices. If you post it on the CVU, ALL the sysops notice. For example, when I'm looking at the recent changes, if I see that someone edited Ilyas's talk page, I'd probably ignore it. However, if someone edited the CVU, I'd definitely check it out. 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn edit conflict... Anyways, I was going to say : "It seems I've been pursuaded. I do still think we should put something on how to revert vandalism for new users." 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * .....Help:Revert. Christine 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (New indent) But a new user may not know that... All I'm saying is to add a link or something that encourages new users to revert vandalism. All efforts should be made to help stop vandalism, even if it's by .01 of a percent.22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I link to the Help:Editing page in my welcome. I assume the generic welcome template does the same (it really should if it doesn't). Christine 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides if someone leaves a message on christines page and for some odd reason she isn't there, the vandal won't be noticed until someone else gets to them. Keep the CVU. Besides its a good place for future candidate sysops to get noticed., 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since users are encouraged to revert vandalism on their own anyway, the CVU should have it's focus changed from a page to report vandalism to a page requesting admins to block vandals, similar to the page Wikipedia has. 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I mean why report it if that's all you're going to do, even though, according to Christine, 99% of users revert the vandalism they report (which they probably do, but I haven't seen that happen sometimes. Still, that's my experience, not everyone else's). 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I say we keep the cvu. But maybe just have a link to the reverting vandalism page and have instructions to revert the vandalism first. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]]<font color=#B22222> Chicken7 </tt> >talk>sign 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and add section or link on how to revert. Chrislee33 07:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a normal user I usually revert the vandalism then I like to report the vandal IP on the CVU. I don't want to put it on someones talk page cuz what if they are not going to be around for a while? Keep the CVU so us regular joes have a place to list the baddies.--Degenret01 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"...that anyone can edit'
Well, anyone can edit this wikia. But i see more and more wrong edits from IP addresses.

Like the Dragon chainbody was last set on 198K?

HAM boots, best boots in the game with stats 90+?

And many more, I think that people first have to make an account, read rules *then continue* and then they may edit.

And after 50 edits they may place images

What do you think of this?


 * 1) Make account
 * 2) Read rules
 * 3) Continue
 * 4) Account made
 * 5) Edit
 * 6) Placing images after 50 edits made

10:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The suggestion here violates two very important policies; RS:AEAE and RS:AGF. Basically, all editors are equal, and that whenever someone edits, assume it's to help the wiki, not hurt it. Now, if they do things like that above, what to do first is assume good faith. Maybe they didn't know. Just put a nice little note on the talk page. However, if it continues and the user just won't listen to you and acts obnoxiously, then that might be considered vandalism, but, otherwise, no. This idea can't happen because it violates these policies, and they are very fundamental for the RuneScape Wiki. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png]] 20:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we have to assume good faith, and it's impossible to set those restrictions anyways. Some IPs DO have great edits. Christine 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Remember, not ALL IP's are bad. Infact, most of them edit in good faith, some of them make silly edits, and some are vandals. But to block an entire usergroup would be like putting one's entire family in jail for what they did (I understand that this has happened and is happening in the world). Just let IPs edit and if they're vandalizing, revert it and block them. If their edits are silly, I see no reason why you can't just click "revert" or "undo". 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - I've done about fifty edits throughout the various IPs that I have used, reverting vandalism, improving articles and notably being the one responsible for breaking all the codes in the Chaos Elemental's corkboard. If you did ban all IPs, my contributions would have never happened.  And I am only one person.  Imagine my contributions and multiply them by the number of good people using IPs; all of them gone.  You will get a reduced incidence of vandalism but you will also make this wiki so much the poorer and inaccurate.--72.1.222.146 11:47, 13 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Comment - He's not asking to ban IPs, he's asking to make it so you have ot have 50 edits (in the mainspace?) to upload an image. 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He said: "I think that people first have to make an account, read rules *then continue* and then they may edit." and later said after 50 edits, upload pictures. So he is in fact advocating a complete ban on IP edits.  You can also see in his step by step instructions that he wants people to create accounts before they can make a single edit.


 * Comment Talk about missing the forest for the trees.  I just realized: what is this discussion doing here on the talk page for requests for administration?  Shouldn't it be in the Yew grove?--72.1.222.146 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - This whole process is something that... if it were to be changed... is something that should be taken up with Wikia instead. This is an interesting trade-off in terms of making things difficult for the new contributor before you can make your first edit.  In some ways, I like the idea of adding some initial obsticles for new users (aka something like tutorial island on Runescape) so you don't have a whole bunch of throw-away accounts... or at least something that you've invested a little bit of time into first.  Quality does improve significantly when you do this, but at the expense of driving a great many more people away from editing and adding content.  Experience on Wikipedia and other wiki projects show that by opening up the editing tools (including image uploads) for anybody and everybody, that it provides an excellent path for brand new contributors to get involved.  Where to draw that line is sometimes difficult between removing problematic users and allowing a low threshold for new contributors to start out.  By their very nature, a wiki tends to err on the side of allowing new users full access to editing tools.  I agree that this needs to continue.  --Robert Horning 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - This would completely defeat the purpose of a wiki, the point being: Anyone can contribute to the ongoing project. Disallowing the right for anyone to edit could have severe consequences for this wiki. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I only "officially" joined after I had already made several small edits as an anonymous IP. By disallowing IP's to edit, you'd not only remove that (large) part of the population, but it would also discourage many people from even signing up to begin with. I understand that many vandals come from anonymous IPs, but that's not to say all anonymous IPs vandalize. The point is to assume good faith. - Regabuh 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Strongly Oppose -  That ruins the whole purpose of a wiki. I see more good IP edits than vandalism. Anyway, we're always advertising, "The wiki for all things RuneScape that anyone can edit!" [[Image:White party hat.PNG|13px]] <font color="Blue"> C  <font color="Blue">Teng  <font color="Red">talk 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is just wrong, YES anyone can edit this wikia. They can do what ever they want. But if they make an account, read rules and stuff, THEN they may edit, so, everyone can still edit, but with a little change..
 * Or better, read rules before anyones first edit! That means this has nothing to do with IP banning..

13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)