Forums: Index > Village Dump > Inactive admins
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1894 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Recently there have been a few issues of users with admin rights making edits/deletions that are either unconstructive or go against the wishes of the community here. MrN9000 has chosen to remove his admin privileges as a result of this, but others have held onto their privileges even though they don't appear to still be actively working in the interests of this wiki.

Added to this there are also a significant number of admins who have chosen to edit at the fork site and solely there. Some of these have also been openly hostile to the user base here.

The basic premise of granting admin privileges is that those who are working for the good of the community are given access to features that are above what most users have access to. When these admins decide to use their capacity to damage the site (like Hotadmin4u changing the navigation bar to redirect to the fork site) they are in fact a danger to the site. In short, if they aren't going to be responsible, why should they be given power?

Below is a list of those with admin capacity (excluding Admin filter, Chronarion, Sannse and Stillwaters). While I have my own thoughts as to a rule as to who should have admin rank, I'm leaving it open for the community to make that call. The dates shown are the date of last edit (with a second date in parenthesis if there was a significant gap between the last edit and the edit prior).                               Puppy's talk page03:04 30 Mar 2013

  1. Hindleyite's edits in 2013 have been all related to Forum:Audio deletion request. Prior to that his last edit was 11:23, July 30, 2012

Thoughts and stuff

I concur entirely. Deopping should be done by a rule, but the proprietors of the Fork are a special case, as the only business plan of the Fork seems to be to convince the world (at forums such as Wikipedia) that the Fork is Uncyclopedia and we are not. They stand to gain directly, personally, and in some cases financially from the demise of this website and there is no reason for them to retain Admin rights over this site.

Separately, Electrified mocha chinchilla is the former name of Hotadmin4u69, I believe on the claim that the person lost the password or ability to gain access to the former account. There is no reason for a claimed-inaccessible account to have Admin rights at all; and in view of the treachery involved in the Fork's creation and publicity, I am not sure I believe the claim. Spıke Ѧ 12:30 30-Mar-13

The EMC/HotAdmin thing was due to an issue with Wikia not allowing a bundle of users (including me) to log in for a few days. The creation of the second account was a way to get around the issue. The choice to continue as the temporary account was one I never understood, but was never done with any malicious intent. Having both accounts with admin access is excessive - much the same as Haydraliene/Lyrithya/PIGGY.                               Puppy's talk page02:03 30 Mar 2013

I de-admined myself. Feel different. Smaller. And cold. Ever so cold. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:39, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the unwashed masses.                               Puppy's talk page05:42 30 Mar 2013
So that's the smell. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:20, March 30, 2013 (UTC)
"treachery". ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 01:43, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
Why does treachery smell like a lineup at PAX? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:42, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
If the main business of the fork is too convince the world that we are the one and only uncyclopedia, does that mean this site only serves to define "conspiracy theorists"? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 01:45, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
If I wasn't already creeped out by the paranoia last week...this forum has me totally spooked. De-opping yes...conspiracies and sucking the little joy left out of this site. My proposal...give all admins one month to choose. Admins who don't bother to show up are deopped. Admins who want to admin both sites must agree to split time evenly and show no bias...deopped if they blatantly ignore their agreement. Mojitos and poppers are free for all. The dancing will be legendary. --ShabiDOO 01:58, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Shabidoo here, give the admins that are still interested in this site a month to show up and contribute positively to this site. Deopping should be done with caution, since they may have protected their userpages, and may want to change them in the future, not to mention, it seems disrespectful of their past contributions before the fork. If we deop them, we should change the userpage protection of their userpages to autoconfirmed rather than sysop only. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:28, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

The Forkers have been gone for 3 months, which Puppy tells me is a common standard of inactivity at Wikia. I reject the notion that they did not know their withdrawal would have consequences and that we now need to give them one last month to exhibit a superficial presence here and pretend they care. The question on the table ought to be the immediate de-opping of Zombiebaron, Hotadmin, Froggy, Lyrithya, and all their sockpuppets, with the user-page protection Simsie suggests above. I doubt that any of them would even say they care, but would be glad to use this act as further proof that our website is moribund. We need to repair and move forward without another month of dithering--and without a gaping back-door for more vandalism like the 1-Apr spate, which rendered our entire site superficially uninteresting for hours, for which I would add Frosty and RAHB to the list. As always, all are welcome to return and contribute independent of the status of the Fork. Just not as sysops except as the result of a legitimate future VFS process. Spıke Ѧ 11:12 2-Apr-13

Actually, “active users” are now defined by one month, but it was previously 90 days. But the rationale behind this is simple. When both Frosty and Lyrithya were put forward for admin the discussion of “but they are admins elsewhere” came up. The argument for them being given the role - both of whom I supported - was that they showed their primary dedication was for this wiki. We now have a glut of admins. Of these admins we have a number who have shown their primary dedication is off-wiki. Some of them have decided to make changes here without community consensus or directly against that. We have too many chiefs, and many of them are supporting another tribe. Stripping back the access of users that have been absent for months is a sensible move. I'm not saying that we salt the Earth or remove their names from anything - they can have access to their user pages, and are welcome to edit here. I'm simply talking about keeping the admin privileges among those that are currently acting as administrators for this site.                               Puppy's talk page03:11 02 Apr 2013
SPIKE...would you please make a commentary or explanations....a clear proposal with time table and names of admins. --ShabiDOO 21:48, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
At the moment I've opened this up to a forum discussion for the purpose of getting community feedback. You've put together a proposal above, and Spike has put together another one - albeit both of them are light on detail. I'd rather leave this open for discussion prior to a vote for another few days (given it's only been about 3 days so far), and then I'll happily put it down as a vote.                               Puppy's talk page07:45 03 Apr 2013
I believe I still have admin status on the Fork (I haven't checked of late) but would be happy to see that lapse if the situation was mirrored here as regards inactivity. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:10, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Rather than changing the structure we have completely, I propose that we look at each admin on a case by case basis as to whether or not they retain admin status, and for that we do this via individual forum votes. As a global rule change, however, I'm proposing that admins who have made no edits for a period of 90 days have their permissions taken back to rollback status. I also ask that admins who have decided that they will use this site primarily for the promotion of the fork, or are no longer interested in being a part of the community here - volunteer to remove their own admin status. (The exceptions to the rule would be Chron and Stillwaters, for the obvious reason, and Autofilter as it's a utility rather than a user.) Admins who have had their capacity removed as a result of this ruling would have to go through VFS in order to have the capacity returned to them.

This gives admins the opportunity to show they are acting in the interests of this wiki (which they have had that opportunity by simply doing exactly that over the last 90 days). It is a compromise solution based upon the feedback of all of the commentary above.                               Puppy's talk page01:59 09 Apr 2013

Proposal 1a

As a side aspect to this, I'm suggesting we look at "temporarily" removing admin status for those that act in a manner that is contrary to the community spirit of the site, or predominantly to advertise off-wiki stuff. This would be similar to blocking regular users, but it wouldn't be something that automatically comes back into play. So in short, suggesting something along the lines of a one month stripping of admin access, but keeping rollback access. Once the month has passed they then ask their local 'crat to reinstate their admin status. (Much the same as when previously dormant admins had their capacity revoked due to inactivity they simply asked for the authorisation back and it was granted.) If during the time of temporary de-opping they contyinue to act in a "bannable" manner then they are banned as any other user would be.

The advantage of this is that it demands that admins act in the manner that all users act, and removes from them carte blanche to do whatever they like without repercussion.                               Puppy's talk page01:59 09 Apr 2013

The problem with this, is, given that ChiefjusticeDS seems to have disappeared for the last month and we don't know when he will be active again, the bureaucrat we would have to ask would be Wikia staff, and we would have to explain all of this all over again to staff each time. Sannse occasionally checks in here, but is not active here on a daily basis either. Wikia staff might not give the authorization back simply because they asked for it back. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 05:35, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
ZB - assuming he sticks around - is still a 'crat. Chief may come back. This forum establishes the communal rule. We can always vote for 'crat. Long story short, though, is that these are minor administrative issues, not a problem with the concept.                               Puppy's talk page05:39 09 Apr 2013'm a 'crat too.....and I still do stuff.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Oh again? I can contact the Chief to drop by. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 16:00, April 11, 2013 (UTC)