RuneScape talk:Requests for adminship

Forums
Now can we have forum sysops? If so, we should add a "Forum" section on the RFA page for that specific voting. I'd nominate myself for that, and probably not get as many opposes. 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, no known editor has admin powers on the new forum. Once we find out how to make forum mods (probably with the help of Wikia staff), we'll create a new section for forum mods/admins after we start the new nomination process. Dtm142 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whiplash does.[[Image:Yellow party hat.PNG|14px]] Ilyas[[Image:99damage.jpeg]] Talk Contribs 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a wikia forums. It's phpbb and I don't think wikia has anything to do with it. Whiplash (?) installed it on the website. 19:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The phpBB Forums are the offsite forums, and Whiplash created them. The Beta Wikia Forums are the brand new forum software that we have been allowed to use that is based on phpBB, and is totally separate from Whiplash's forum. Oddlyoko talk 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that moderator powers now exist (I'm a forum moderator at least). I propose that all sysops are automatically given moderator powers, all bureaucrats are given admin powers, and there is a separate section on this page for forum moderator nominations.  The process will be the same as the "new" nomination process. Dtm142 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No need, that exact system is already implemented directly into the forum software. B'crat = admin, sysop = mod. Oddlyoko talk 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to mod someone without sysopping them on the main site? Dtm142 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not with the current system. If we had that, though, I'd rather it be so that all sysops are fmods, but not all fmods are sysops. (All sysops can do fmod stuff, but regular-old fmods are limited to the forums) Oddlyoko talk 07:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how I would have wanted it too. Thanks for the clarification, that's all I needed to know. Dtm142 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies and Info
A month or so ago, I wrote some policies and information about the rfa process on the Dark Runescape Wiki's rfa page. I think that the information is helpful and comprehensive, and the policies are fairly well set up - adhering to the 'All editors are equal' policy and making the process fair and clean. Since the RuneScape Wiki appears to be ready to introduce some policies, I've copied them over to this page for us to look at. Post below them to discuss how we could adapt them to fit the RuneScape Wiki. 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Requests for adminship?
This is a page where users can be nominated for administrative duties. For more information on the voting, nomination, and decision processes, see below.

Administrative Privileges
There are two types of administrators - sysops (system operators) and bureaucrats. Sysop privileges include the ability to block vandals and the ability to easily revert vandalism. Bureaucrat privileges include the ability to create sysops and bureaucrats as well as all sysop privileges. For more information on administrators and their privileges, see the administrators page.

Nomination
Any user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another user (again - no I.P. addresses) for administrative privileges as long as the Recruitment Status shown in the Recruitment Status section below is 'Yes'. Self-nominating is allowed, but may be frowned upon depending on the case. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to become an administrator if they wish to avoid self-nominating. Note that candidates for bureaucracy are usually already sysops.

The are no requirements for nomination, but here are a few general guidelines:
 * Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
 * Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a minimum of several weeks to a few months.
 * Candidates should have a good number of contributions (generally a few hundred).
 * Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users.
 * Self-nominating is sometimes frowned upon because occasionally, a user may create an account, make a few contributions, then self-nominate. These users are potentially dangerous because they may have negative intentions and have not actually earned administrative privileges, although they are luckily always unsuccessful and strongly opposed. If you think that you truly deserve administrative duties and have shown so, but have not been noticed, either ask another user to nominate you, and you'll be nominated if the user thinks you deserve it, or self-nominate. If other users think you deserve administrative privileges, then the self-nomination doesn't matter, and they'll support you anyway.

Voting
To vote or comment on a candidate's nomination, please use one of the voting markup choices listed below. Votes should not be based on only edits or time active, but also maturity and character. Before voting, think carefully about what you've seen of the candidate's actions and reactions, and assess their leadership skills and diplomacy - necessary traits for an administrator. Try to always make the best decision for the benefit of the wiki.

Remember that this is not a secret ballot. Votes are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm.

Votes should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has voted negatively against you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason. Ask the candidate to explain the reasons behind their vote, but do not base your vote on theirs. If the candidate explains their vote, and you truly feel that the reasons were insufficient, irrelevant, or incorrect, then the candidate's own voting policies may come into questions, but please explain this fully.

The following list is a list of voting markup choices which should be placed at the beginning of all posts within a nomination section. If you think of a new markup choice which you believe will be useful, add it to the list.
 * Support - a positive vote.
 * Oppose - a negative vote.
 * Neutral - a neutral vote. Should be well-explained.
 * Comment/Observation/Note - a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
 * Not yet/Wait a little - a negative vote suggesting future support.
 * Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to close voting and make a decision on a specified date.
 * {Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat presented in the form of {Example Candidate} has been made a sysop/bureaucrat or The voting period of {Example Candidate}'s nomination is now over, {Example Candidate} remains a normal user/sysop. See the Decisions section below for more details.

Decisions
A candidacy will be decided after a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two months of voting. A bureaucrat may post a notice of intent indicating a planned decision and will post a decision to close voting ('notice of intent' and 'decision' are voting markup - see Voting section above for details). Once a candidacy has been decided, it may be archived.

Bureaucrats will present decisions in the form of {Example Candidate} is now a sysop/bureaucrat or The voting period of {Example Candidate}'s nomination is now over, {Example Candidate} remains a normal user/sysop.

Reference
Below is a list of pages which may be used for reference to aid users in making decisions about nominating and voting:
 * Special:Editcount - displays a user's edits in a table showing total edits and number of edits in each edit type (article, forums, etc.). To use it, simply type the user's username into the box.
 * Special:Contributions - displays each of a user's contributions by date and time made (latest first) to any page on the wiki (option of 20, 50, 100, 200, or 500 edits per page), including description if description was entered into 'Summary' box in edit screen.

Discussion of Policies and Info
I apologize for the redlinks; they were unavoidable unless I corrected each one individually. The 'Recruitment Status' link actually links further down on the Dark Runescape Wiki rfa page, where the Recruitment Status is posted. The same goes for the rest of the links which link to other sections of the page. I actually think that Recruitment Status is one technique which we could definitely adapt - we happen to be using it right now, though it's unnamed. 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't support the recruitment status thing. I think that we've done enough discussion.  Unless I get any new feedback, I'm going to create the new templates and reopen the page. Dtm142 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think that we need to reopen the page, although I don't think that we need any new admins atm. If no one supports the recruitment status, then who implemented it? I think it was added about 2 weeks ago to the rfa page and sitenotice, idk who added it though. We still need to discuss whether we're going to add policies or not. 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Recruitment status is currently closed 'cause of this discussion and new procedure :) Dtm142 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Created policy page at RuneScape:Rfa_policy. Make edits to that policy until we're happy with it. Oddlyoko talk 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactive votes
This poll is to determine if you think users who have been inactive for time of more than 2 months should not be allowed to vote on Requests for adminship/bureaucratship, without first accumulating at least 50 edits.

Support

 * 1) Whiplash 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Administrators are meant to be members of the community decided by members of the community. If someone has abandoned the community, they are no longer members of the community thus shouldn't be able to decide.  Most of the users that were active when I first joined are no longer active today.  Similarly, most of today's editors weren't around when I first joined.  The RuneScape Wiki's community is constantly changing.  I say that in order to vote, you need to have been actively editting for two weeks before then.  This solves another problem (sheep voting) since this will prevent users from joining just for the purpose of voting.  Two weeks is the perfect amount of time since that's the amount of time an RFA has to run for.  However, anyone should be able to give a support vote.  Opposes should just be reserved for active users.  I've also moved this to a more appropriate subpage. Dtm142 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Simply put, an edit a day for 50 days, leave for two years, come back because you suddenly hate someone, and vote against them? Cool Spy0 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Explained alot better to me[[image:Scythe.PNG|25px]] Atlandy 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No Ice 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No [[image:Piety.PNG |30px]] Sir Lenehan [[image:smite.PNG|30px]] 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) If you have been inactive, you can't possibly know how nominated people have been editing.  16:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with DTM's idea. Cashman286 talk 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Comment Umm... I thought the category I voted in was "no firm amount of time"... that's still what it means, right? Skill 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If a user leaves for a period greater than two months, then returns, they should be considered semi-active, until they can make at least 50 edits in any namespace besides user. Then, they should be allowed to vote. Otherwise, they shouldn't because of their inactivity. If Merovingian returned, he'd have to make 50 edits to be able to vote and to be considered an active part of the community. 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that. Moved vote.  [[Image:Sysopcrown.PNG]]  Tes     Fan   [[Image:Sysopcrown.PNG]]       03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/Undecided

 * 1) Don't know why I should oppose or support quite yet.  22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes to users who left and came back, but they must have had up to 2 months of being active in total at least. I'm neutral for new users, though... Cashman286 talk 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about people like Dreadnought? He came back just to be a complete jerk.  He opposed Tarikochi's RFA among other things. 24.66.94.144 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral - Don't really care. Editors should know what votes are valid and what aren't. 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral- I was gonna support it, but then I read abou them spamming to get the 50 edits up. Hmm. I might decide later.

Oppose
Oppose. I don't understand why this rule is necessary. You need to have a really good reason if you want to take away someone's right to vote. --Wowbagger421 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) Encourages spam editing, really. If they want to vote, they're going to vote. Doesn't mean I agree with them not being active and returning to vote, but this is not the solution. Chissey 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) One of the pleasures of intelligence is the power of discretion. Some users may come along and become active within 2 months. On the other hand, others might edit for a few days, then come back periodically (within 2 months) to oppose everyone and everything. All active users know whose votes count and whose votes don't count. We don't need to put a time limit on things. 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above. Skill 22:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I would probably say for the vote in the actual tally to not count under these conditions on both "Supports" and "Opposes" but the comment/opinion to not be strike-throughed, as it could still be relevant. The goal is for a consensus rather than a percentage of tallied votes, so a discussion would still be relevant and counterable if deemed out-of-date.  [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)