SmashWiki talk:Administrators/Archive 1

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

IM Contact Info

At this point, we should really have a way to contact each other outside of the wiki, preferably something instant like MSN and AIM. It would go a long way towards getting all the admins on the same page. Post them below if you've got'em! --RJM Talk 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Randall00

There's always the irc://irc.freenode.net/wikia-smashbros IRC room I made a while back. --CharitwoTalk 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, well it's functional, but how many sysops do we really have in there while they're "sysopping"? I'm not sure it's very reliable in that regard. --RJM Talk 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I idle in the channel pretty much whenever my computer's on. If I'm at my computer you can get my attention by pinging me in the channel (type my username) or messaging me. --Kirby King 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also (always) in the channel when online. I can alternatively be reached be using special:emailuser/sky2042. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There's also the "E-mail this user" option, pending you put your e-mail in your preferences.--Richard 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me i've been banned from the un-mario wiki an i dunno why or how to lift it--GDawg816- "Kept ya waiting, huh." (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless one of the admins here is also an admin there, there's nothing anyone here can do about it. You should contact the administrator that blocked you there and discuss your ban with him. --Shadowcrest 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait

Is Porple inactive? He responds to his talk page messages...--FoxHeadSSBB.png PSIWolf (T • C • E) 08:10, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I take it to mean that he can't be reasonably expected to respond to vandalism or to comment on current discussions. I could always be contacted on IRC or elsewhere (and I was) during my long absence, but that doesn't make me active. – Emmett 09:18, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
Per Emmett. Porple basically just handles the hosting and other Wiki maintence relating to the server, and doesn't get involved in any administrative/bureaucrat issues. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 12:23, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Demotion section and section for when to request

I think that there should be sections for when to request for adminship (so a section that gives advice on what should be considered before submitting an RfA) and a section that would explain when administrative rights should be revoked from a user. The same sections are on SmashWiki:Rollback (except for rollback obviously), so it should be appropriate that they are here too. Of course, the sections should probably be more elaborate than the sections on that page since there are more things to consider when making an RfA and demoting an admin. BRAWLS BoFSig.png OF BoFSig.pngFURY 03:23, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

There is pretty much no set criteria for a demotion; in fact the only time an admin was ever demoted here was when after the move off of Wikia (where inactive admins we're not reopped in the move), Pikamander2 came back for two days to get his adminship back and then immediately disappeared again indefinitely, where I then just requested Toomai to de-op him. It would really be handled on a case-by-case basis. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 03:55, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

Inactive administrators

So many administrators are inactive, why is that? (Smashworker101 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (EST))

I have no idea, but it's for some reason. Dots (talk) Link OoT Dots.PNG The Violin 14:30, 7 January 2015 (EST)
ya know, it's actually a problem because when the trolls, vandals, sockpuppets, etc. are on the wiki with no administrator on, the wiki will get vandalize. (Smashworker101 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2015 (EST))
I do agree that it's been a problem lately. But I think we have enough admins as is. Dots (talk) Link OoT Dots.PNG The Tyranitar 15:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Indeed (Smashworker101 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (EST))
While there aren't many administrators online now, that doesn't mean that vandals won't go unnoticed. People like these three users have a good habit of catching vandals before other people do. AidanzapunkSig.jpgBlueStreak Speeds By 17:53, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Umm..... even though Laikue, Monsieur Crow (ReiDemon), and PikaSamus (Red) can catch vandals quickly, they don't have permission to block them because they're rollbackers not sysops, administrators, developers, bureaucrats, nor bots. Plus the administrators forgot to block Wieners in man butt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · in man butt WHOIS) because looking at this user's contributes, he did some vandalism + inappropriate username. (Smashworker101 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (EST))
When users vandalize for a moment but then leave after a certain time, sometimes its not really worth it to block. Dots (talk) Link OoT Dots.PNG The Metal Slug 18:21, 7 January 2015 (EST)
yeeeeeah, he got blocked already, but for 3 days. So ya, its not worth it to block someone for infinite if they left. (Smashworker101 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2015 (EST))

Porplemontage

I would say that Porplemontage is semi-active now, they've been on a few times in the last couple of weeks. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 22:15, 25 April 2015 (EDT)

Porple is the site owner and server guy, but I believe he deliberately chooses to be considered inactive due to not being involved in most day-to-day wiki editing. Miles (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2015 (EDT)
I seen porple on "currently online" while checkin' out the recent changes page lol! I was wondering why he is considered inactive. Thanks Miles! 2.29.245.42 12:26, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Protect this page?

Is there a reason we can't protect this page to be only admin-edited? I don't see any reason a normal user would need to edit it (most of the time admins decide their own status, and when a user tries to change it without their permission it gets undone), and it's been the target for a few vandal attacks recently. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 15:17, 14 January 2016 (EST)

I agree. There's no reason for this page to be edited by anyone other than admins. Disaster Flare My signature image for the default signature. Duplicate of Lucina's life white stock head. (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2016 (EST)
Same. Give me 2 good reasons why this shouldn't be protected. 98.157.202.185 15:21, 14 January 2016 (EST)

Rename request

YOSHIFAN198

I would like to change my username to "CaptainMetaKnight7583". And how do I get the bureaucrat to acknowledge my request?

You need to go message him here. Disaster Flare My signature image for the default signature. Duplicate of Lucina's life white stock head. (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Special:CheckUser

This should probably be noted in the abilities section of this page.

I would add it myself, but we gave this page full protection because ???

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 15:46, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

It was given full protection because the page was a common vandal hotspot. Beyond that, ask Miles, because he was the one who protected it in the first place. Disaster Flare My signature image for the default signature. Duplicate of Lucina's life white stock head. (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

Demodding long inactive admins

Proposed.png This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

As it been on SmashWiki ever since its inception, once a user is promoted to an admin, they'll keep their adminship "for life". There's no written rule on it, but there's also no rule on adminship ever being taken away if one is inactive for a very long time, and there's never been a real push to ever address it. The only time adminship was ever removed in this wiki's history was when we moved off Wikia, as user rights weren't transferred over, and inactive admins weren't repromoted unless they requested it. The lone exception still involves the move, as it was Pikamander2, who was an inactive admin that requested his adminship back here after the move, and then did nothing at all for over 2 years besides one post in a browser poll, so I personally asked Toomai to demote him on this inactivity basis, where it went through with all parties amicable about it.

When the wiki first started, it didn't seem like a real issue for admins to keep their powers on a virtual permanent basis; having been created in 2006, the wiki was really young then and lacked proper context on how long someone could be gone for or how much things can change over such a long period, with the bulk of users having a scale of only a year or two in their scope and no one having more than a few, unlike nowadays where we have users approaching 10 years of experience. The move off Wikia inadvertently helped with this, as it indirectly caused the aforementioned sweep of the inactive admins, pushing back the wiki having to address it. But now that we've reached a point where we have inactive admins like Emmett who hasn't made a single edit in over five years, it's something that we should really get something settled about now.

You may be thinking what is the problem with having a long inactive admin suddenly come back on the wiki and instantly get fully involved with their full admin powers again? Surely if they were good enough to get a RfA passed then, they should have no issues keeping their powers now? Well one of the most important qualities for an admin is being in touch with the wiki community and the greater Smash community; how can one properly administrate if they're not in tune with the culture, don't know most of the people involved and aren't recognised in return, and will lack knowledge of all the new policies and events that have happened? Since Emmett's last edit, the following has happened:

  • Brawl has went from the biggest competitive Smash game to completely dead.
  • Melee has surged to heights completely eclipsing the MLG era several times over.
  • Smash 4 is here and has effectively replaced Brawl while gaining a competitive scene several magnitudes larger than Brawl ever was.
  • PM went from a developing mod taking forever to get a decent release, to then blowing up to being as competitively popular as an actual Smash game, to then running into legal issues and becoming an underground game.
  • The concept of esports has blown up.
  • AiB became Nintendo Dojo and then died, Smashboards declined significantly in prominence, all while Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter became tremendously popular for Smash usage and effectively replaced them.
  • The Smash community's culture has changed significantly in those years; go read a Smashboards thread from 2012 and before for example and see how different smashers talked then to how they talk now.

Then that's not even touching on all the changes and new things that has happened within the wiki, with the radically different userbase, new admins, new policies, etc. Assuming a returning old admin from over five years ago was exactly the same as before, would you still trust them to be an effective administrator of a Smash-based wiki after all that has happened since? And that's assuming they're exactly the same, people change over the years, and someone who was a capable admin then may very well not be an ideal admin nowadays. In the case that they are, they would have no problem getting a RfA passed again if they somehow became serious about the wiki again and got fully reinvolved, so the wiki has more to risk keeping them an admin, rather than demodding them and having them go through the process again. One more factor is that such long inactive accounts could simply be abandoned or even forgotten about, linked with emails they haven't been touched in years, and may potentially get hacked without the inactive admin knowing so nor us being any wiser about it. That is an admittedly minor/unlikely concern, but is something that popped into my head nonetheless.

Now if we were to agree that inactive admins should be demodded, we would have to come up with a standard on which to do so. Some ideas:

  • Inactive admin hasn't made an edit in X amount of time. I don't like this one, as it's too stringent in qualification, and an inactive admin could keep their adminship by just popping up to make a random edit every now and then without really being involved, like how Semicolon pretty much did since he been inactive.
  • Inactive admin hasn't made X amount of edits in Y amount of time. I don't like this one either, as basing any thing on sheer edit count fails to paint a proper picture of one's actual activity, involvement, and quality of contributions.
  • Set admin "term limits" and require admins to rerun a RfA after X amount of time, where they're demodded if don't do so or fail to gather sufficient support. This one would weed out inactive admins over time, whether through just not being around nor caring enough to rerun a RfA, or from the community deciding their inactivity is too much to retain their admin tools at the moment. It would also have the benefit of providing a builtin check against active admins that the community feels hasn't been up to snuff, without having to go through with an unprecedented demodding proposal. I see this idea though having a great propensity to potentially cause drama when it comes to active admins, and is the most radical option. Plus I could also see it being an issue during a period of few admins with no viable and willing candidates around, as the wiki needs some sort of admin around to function and giving the community a way to oust them at an inopportune time may not be such a good idea.
  • After the admin been listed in the inactive section here over an X period of time, setup a RfA-like review of the admin and have the community debate and decide if they think the admin has been inactive too long, and whether or not they would still trust them to have admin powers if they were to suddenly reinsert themselves in the present day. Has a very subjective factor to it, but anything regarding administration is heavily subjective to begin with, and I like it a lot more than the first two options, while it's less radical and probably less controversial than the third option. However it still has potential to be "gamed", as an inactive admin could come back and say they're active again, breaking the streak of being listed as inactive, and then disappear without really doing anything, like how Semi did here. Doing this, they may technically not fulfill the "qualification" of going up for an activity review and thus avoid the potential demodding process altogether for another extended period of time.

So discuss your thoughts on the topic and whether you support or oppose doing something to demote inactive admins. Then if you do support demoting inactive admins, discuss which way you think would be the best way to go about it. Once those things get settled, we can discuss specifics like "what amount of time is too inactive". Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 21:12, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I like the idea of demoting long-inactive staff to a "retired" category (may need better name). They don't have admin powers while retired (don't need a new usergroup for it, just a listing on this page), but if they return and become an established part of the wiki again, they can get their adminship back on bureatcrat decision instead of a whole new RfA. Or the bureaucrat can tell them to make a new RfA to earn it back, if that feels more appropriate for the situation.
The criteria to be demoted to "retired" would be something like:
  • No/few edits in over a year
  • No/little usage of admin powers in that time
  • No/minimal communication with users off-wiki (e.g. Discord)
All subjective, nothing numerical. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Sphere 21:37, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, but the main issue I have is "to what end"? Is there a particular reason to remove powers from inactive users? They're not being abused or anything, and non-admin users seeking assistance have a clear list on this page of who is available to assist them and who is not. I feel a more sensible approach would be, on the off-chance an old admin returned and behaved irresponsibly, to have their behavior reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the current userbase/admins, with a bureaucrat making the final decision. We have so few admins and such a strenuous RfA process that your proposals seem like a bit more complicated of a system than is necessary or worthwhile for a wiki of our size. To be clear, I don't think there's a huge downside to de-modding admins who haven't edited in years; I just think the more elaborate systems are unnecessary, nor is it a particularly important issue to deal with. A case-by-case perusal of who's genuinely active and who's not is easily performed by one of the bureaucrats should the decision be made to de-mod anyone. [Edit conflicted with Toomai; a "retired" staff group is also a viable way of handling it which again is easily done case-by-case and non-arbitarily.] Miles (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
Just going to chime in here and say that I feel that making existing (and active) admins re-RfA seems to me like a general waste of time, because I am fairly certain that none of us would be in any danger of demotion on those terms anyway. Yeah I realize that this is a "well it's pointless now" statement, but I feel like it will most likely always be pointless, it's just how I feel the userbase tends to act. If there are enough people clamoring to get an admin fired, this method of doing it would be inefficient anyway as they would have to wait for that admin's "term" to be up...I guess the point I am trying to make here without rambling too much is that, in the case of admin ousting, I don't see a huge gap in "lack of support required to fail a re-RfA" and "support required to follow through with a formal demodding in such a discussion".
You also mentioned that a demodding process among active admins will cause dissension between all involved. I completely agree, and feel like such a process will also spiral out of control, possibly losing us valuable editors. Serpent SKSigHalloween.png King 19:59, 16 October 2017 (EDT)
I have to agree with Serpent King and Miles here. I think the situation this proposal is designed to address is rare enough that it doesn't feel justified to dedicate a policy of any sort to it, and the solutions on offer seem particularly cumbersome (redoing RfAs?). Nyargleblargle.pngNyargleblargle (Contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2017 (EDT)
I am thinking that this may be something we may want to make an official poll over, to get other users' thoughts on this. Instead of it just being admins arguing over demoting other admins. Serpent SKSigHalloween.png King 16:19, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

@Toomai: Your idea is a good solution and I would support it.

@Miles: It's not a frequent issue, but that doesn't mean it's not one that shouldn't be dealt with. It's better for inactive admins to prove they're capable again as admins should they ever come back, instead of taking a "wait and see" approach to see if they're still admin quality before removing powers. If they're still capable or become recapable, they'll have no problem going through the RfA process that they will undoubtably get strong support for. On the other end if they keep their powers and then come back as an out-of-touch or otherwise incapable admin, it will be a much more controversial process to demod them.

@SK: Point taken, the admin term thing is just an idea for dealing with inactive admins while also giving the wiki a builtin "failsafe" against admins that lose favor among the community; I still find it extremely concerning that the wiki has no set process for demodding admins and no precedence at all for it. But that issue is tangential to the inactive admins issue, and the admin terms idea is not one I'm interested in actively pursuing. Also non-admin users should be joining the discussion here.

@Nyargle: Again something being "rare" doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with, and if it wasn't for the move off Wikia, we would have something like over 15 inactive admins right now, some of which haven't been active up to 10 years now, that would have the ability to just come back and throw their weight around with full admin (or even bureaucrat) powers. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 22:35, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm a bit late to the discussion here, and I understand I may not the best candidate for input considering my patchy activity, but I think demodding inactive administrators is a good idea for the sake of tidiness and in the event someone not attuned to the culture returns with powers he or she doesn't deserve, which imo is potentially disruptive. We should at least require returning admins prove why they should keep their powers considering the aforementioned cultural and rule changes. To add, Emmett (Shadowcrest) should never have been an admin in the first place. His RfA was made in November 2008, with only 8 months of activity under his belt since he had joined the Wiki in March that year. He also requested this at a time that he was known to be rude to other users (I'm not one to talk about behavior, but I wasn't the one requesting adminship then), acknowledging that his "approval was low." His reason for requesting adminship was that he was a "sysop elsewhere" (namely the Guild Wars wiki) which isn't sufficient (I'm a "sysop elsewhere", should I have powers?), but he was awarded adminship with a lot of blind support (including, regretfully, from myself). He then requested bureaucratship less than a year later and with a lot of support, but this time with some experience in settling user conflicts under his belt, so much of his support was for good reason. However, he was still known for being unpleasant to people on the wiki and in the IRC; I figured that at the time, many users were looking for someone to fill a "tin man" archetype, since Shadowcrest's acrimony was perceived as a strong admin quality. When he was still here in 2012, his edits were relatively sporadic and he unironically initiated a conflict with OT over how he talked to users who violated guidelines in some way. PenguinofDeath, while I like him, also wasn't deserving of adminship. He basically got it because he was Shadowcrest's friend, and his listed merits were that he was British (seriously) and commented occasionally on policy. The same goes for Defiant Elements, who, while swell, basically got adminship for being friends with Shadowcrest (he was also from the Guild Wars wiki). DE was not well known in the community, but people liked him because he "sounded serious" and the tin man affinity helped him garner support. I bring all this up to point out a sort of "spoils system" that existed in the days of old. Things have changed now, and for the better, but I feel like there could be more about merits on the RfA page. For example, disposition and familiarity with the Smash Bros. series should play a huge role in your candidacy. The aforementioned admins barely touched Brawl and expressed animus toward it in the chat room (Shadowcrest didn't even have all the characters unlocked). They all at best should have been part-time rollbackers. Users should be required to show examples of substantial knowledge of the wiki namesake as well as positive personality aspects reflected in their activity, in addition to things like longevity, vandalism awareness, and proficiency in user conflict resolution. Just my two cents. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:17, 16 November 2017 (EST)
I think you have the wrong idea here. This is not a discussion about how we should demote "bad admins" or those who gained admin through supposed illegitimate means (I wasn't there, I don't know one way or the other). This is supposed to be strictly a discussion of "should we demote inactive staff" without consideration of their individual flaws and stuff. Besides, trying to demote people now for reasons years in the past is not good practice. Serpent SKSig.png King 22:48, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Alright I think we've discussed pros and cons of all suggested routes to their fullest. It's time to decide what the hell we are going to do here. Serpent SKSig.png King 23:11, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Demote admins who have been inactive (no edits) for 1 year

  1. I like this one. It would kick out the "clutter" admins who haven't been around in forever, and if, in the future, admins come back 364 days later and say "See, I'm still here!" the community or bureaucrats or whomever can decide whether or not the individual is still qualified for the job. John This is for my signature, which I was told needed to be edited. HUAH! 13:29, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Use a term limit of 3 years and require admins to resubmit an RfA after that period

The admin's possible demotion would be settled by a community vote.

  1. Simply put: once a user is promoted to adminship, it is generally very unlikely that they will ever get demoted, unless they do something particularly bad, or abuse their power. This means that users who probably should not have been promoted to adminship will hypothetically likely remain admins permanently regardless of this, so long as they do not do anything wrong. I think that this is somewhat of a flaw in the admin system we have on the wiki, and requiring resubmissions after a 3 year period could solve this issue, or at least reduce its negative impacts. I understand that there is concern that some admins RfA resubmissions may be unfairly opposed by users who have a grudge against that admin, but as SW:CONSENSUS states: "consensus is not purely determined via vote count. Instead, the dispute should be evaluated in an unbiased fashion to determine which "side" of the debate has the strongest arguments." In other words, such oppositions would not be taken seriously anyway, and therefore would not be problematic. Furthermore, the quality of the job that a user does as an admin in the 3 year period will speak for itself about the capability of that user to be an admin, and as such I highly doubt that such resubmissions will cause admins to be unjustly demoted. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 13:45, 19 November 2017 (EST)
    I think that you are right that we should have some method of demoting admins, but as per my argument against this choice above, this isn't it. It does not make sense to lob demotion in with retiring inactive staff. They are two entirely separate issues that just happen to have the same result. Serpent SKSig.png King 17:21, 25 November 2017 (EST)
    In this case, the main reason I support this option is it is the only one that really has an impact on active admins as well. All the other options would only be effective at demoting inactive admins, and so all an admin would have to do to not get demoted would be to stay active, and not do anything blatantly wrong. This flaw allows for subpar admins who are not necessarily doing anything specifically that would warrant demotion to "skip around" the other measures and remain admins indefinitely. That's why I think this is the best option Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:34, 25 November 2017 (EST)
    You are ignoring what I am saying. I am saying that the demotion of active admins is a separate issue, and should not be lumped into the same policy as the inactive ones. As said before, if an admin really has to go, under this system, we would have to wait until either a) Toomai or I see a major issue (which is what we have now), or b) they have to re-RfA again. It's an unnecessary wait time. If we really want to make a demotion policy, it should not be based on time periods, but rather it should be a proper discussion (able to be started under certain conditions) as with applying for administration in the first place. Serpent SKSig.png King 17:45, 25 November 2017 (EST)
    Ah, I see what you mean now...I may have to reconsider my vote then. Although I'm still somewhat concerned that such a policy may not actually be decided upon for quite some time, but I guess it's not exactly an emergency. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:54, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Evaluate admins who have been inactive (no edits) for 1 year on a case by case basis

The admin's possible demotion would be settled by a community vote.

  1. ...

Demote inactive admins to a "retired" usergroup status

A bureaucrat will decide what identifies an admin as "inactive". This decision can be disputed by the community if need be.

  1. Seems honestly like the best plan of attack. All options here have their flaws, but this one seems to be the least risky one. Serpent SKSig.png King 23:11, 16 November 2017 (EST)
  2. Aidan, the Thankful Rurouni 09:36, 17 November 2017 (EST)
  3. This or ignore it. Miles (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2017 (EST)
  4. Agreed with Miles. This way, we have as little unnecessary drama as possible and we still give inactives the chance to return to their position, should they ever decide to. Disaster Flare My signature image for the default signature. Duplicate of Lucina's life white stock head. (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (EST)
  5. I agree with Toomai. Blue Ninjakoopa 17:08, 17 November 2017 (EST)
  6. Best way to go in my opinion Riko (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2017 (EST)
  7. Spexx (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2017 (EST)
  8. Looking at the available options, I think this is the least risky/problematic one. I'll go with this. Area51Guard.png A51 Trooper 18:03, 25 November 2017 (EST)
  9. I guess this is the best option. Makes inactive admins realize they are not being active, and can even make them return to activity on the wiki. --My signature's image :v Beep (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Ignore inactive admins

  1. ...
Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=SmashWiki_talk:Administrators/Archive_1&oldid=1006845"