Talk: Administrators

This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Administrators page.
Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to the RuneScape Wiki? Read our FAQ.	Be civil Assume good faith Don't delete discussions

Is the "former administrators" section nessasary? C Teng ^talk 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it isn't needed.

Chiafriend 12

I have 12 friends. 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is right now (list might change) it acts as a warning to users not to follow in the footsteps of some users, even though Shadow and Dread were both great editors and helped the wiki a lot.

Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactive admins[]

Should we add a section for inactive admins under the active ones? Half of the admins are inactive now. Laser Dragon 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Richard^talk 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What are the criteria for judging someone as active or inactive? I've just noticed that I have been listed as inactive since 22 July 2010, but I don't regard myself as such. I probably don't edit as much as I used to (especially as Wikia seems intent on destroying looks and functionality), but I am always available for admin stuff. I am notified immediately by email if someone leaves a message on my talk page, and anyone can send me an email directly from this wiki too, so I am pretty on the ball like that. I was surprised to be listed as inactive without even being told, that was all. Leevclarke ^talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 13:06, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Forumadmins[]

I'm going to create a forumadmins section to list forumadmins, as there will be more now that crats can add that user right. I'll attempt to make a forumadmin userbox+icon as well. Who objects?

Instant Winston

^{old edits | new edits}

16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with c teng[]

The former admins page isn't really needed Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)}

I would disagree. It could be useful for new users, as they may wonder why Dreadnought is no longer a sysop even though he had a successful RFA for example. Dtm142 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm[]

What's the difference between the revert button and the rollback button?--

NuparuMahnika

16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The rollback button will not leave a reason for the revision of the edit, and is only to be used in obvious cases of vandalism. If you undo an edit, you are to leave the reason why you did it in the edit summary. Furthermore, a rollback is instant, where an undo you must save changes. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried...[]

...moving the article Iban Disciple to Disciple of Iban, but I can't because it's a re-direct page. As such it won't let me move it and said I should get help from here?

The reason I want to move it is because they're clearly named "Disciple of Iban" in-game, not "Iban Disciple". Can someone move it for me? Zenihdrol 09:21, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Done. You might want to consider putting requests like this on RuneScape:Administrator requests in the future though. C.Chiam^Talk 09:27, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah that makes more sense, I'll keep that in mind. =) Zenihdrol 09:48, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

???[]

Hey, shouldn't users NOT behave as administraters? Youdead00 02:37, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Umm... what? --Iiii I I I 02:38, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about backseat moderating or wbming. In which case, no they shouldn't. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk

02:45, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical or temporal?[]

I might change the list from being alphabetised to in order of becoming an administrator. Why? Because it is better that way and more informative. A user may look up when someone was voted in, and it also helps determining the newest admins who are a lot more likely to be active, if the list hasn't been updated recently. Being alphabetical serves little or no purpose. If someone is looking for a particular user on the list, they would know they are an admin so would not even both going there. Or else they can Ctrl-F find it. If no one replies in a day, I'll be bold and do it anyway. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 08:23, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Best of both: Make a sortable table - so users can choose which sort they want.

@Gaz#7521 23:02, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Former bureaucrats[]

Is there anyone here know if there was former bureaucrats .

thanks

japol1 11:46, February 16, 2011 (UTC) February 16 2011 11:46pm (utc)

Will this do? - [Pharos] 11:51, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Removing list of those who lost tools for negative reasons.[]

I was going to just Be Bold and do it, but realized it would probably end up in discussion anyway so here's my thought. I certainly don't think this is large enough to warrant a full blown YG thread and nearly pray it does not. Anyhow, I do not see any positive reasons for keeping a list of those we had to remove tools from. In every case I know of there was discussion and consensus by the community and that should be enough. This simply serves as a wall of shame to some extent. If anyone is nosey enough to seek why a former admin is no longer such than they can be bold enough to ask that person. Degenret01 (talk) 23:09, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the list is negative and unnecessary. I also think it could be removed. You can always see the same kindof information in Special:Userrights.

IsobelJ

12:30, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

The reason why they're no longer an admin can be removed, but removing the whole list isn't necessary IMO. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 13:02, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. I think we should keep the list, along with the reasons. You say that it serves as a "wall of shame", and yes, that's exactly what it is. If people go against the standards we have on this wiki, why should we sympathise with them and not log exactly what they've done to lose any of their usergroups? The information is already public anyway on Special:Userrights (as Isobel notes), so why are we considering making an effort to keep it 'private'? As stated in earlier discussions on this talk page, it displays exactly what users should not do, acting as a 'warning' of sorts. This information deserves to be kept on the page. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 13:44, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

I'd say remove. Naming and shaming is pretty fucking petty and unnecessary. We dinnae hae a list of people that we've permablocked after all Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 14:05, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

We have one at Special:BlockList, and also at RS:BAN and RS:BLOCKED. --Iiii I I I 07:43, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it for historical reasons. I don't see how it's any different from user bans and closure descriptions that are listed in RS:FA.

@Degen asking former admins why they've been desysoped is useless, as most of them no longer edit. Linking the relevant thread is much more efficient for users that wish to know what happened.

@Isobel Special:UserRights can only be accessed by administrators - if you mean Special:Log/rights, using it is extremely inconvenient. There's no way to filter the logs, and with almost two thousand entries you'd have to know the exact username, which you wouldn't have if this list is removed. --Iiii I I I 20:42, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

If they were not here and part of it, it isn't their business why it happened. If they are so nosy they need to know let them look it up for themselves. It simply does not aid us at all. As far as using them as a warning to other, that is just not needed either. We have the UTP and various other rules on how to behave. Showing people that we do desysop for breaking those rules is hardly what would stop someone from doing so. Degenret01 (talk) 20:56, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. I don't see how it wouldn't discourage someone with a user group / an admin from making the mistakes. It's not being 'nosy', it's more having a comprehensive list that is easily visible. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 00:44, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

"If they were not here and part of it, it isn't their business why it happened. If they are so nosy they need to know let them look it up for themselves." Are you seriously denigrating users just because they're curious? How are they supposed to look it up without knowing who the users are? What about users that were here but want to go back and reread the discussions? --Iiii I I I 06:38, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

The "wall of shame" effect can be mostly mitigated by removing the reasons for desysops. I agree with Iiii I I I. I think the list with names and dates should stay. It's a good reference, you can't find this info in one place elsewhere. 5-x ^Talk 10:32, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

How else do you expect people to go back and read discussions about previous incidents leading to a person's 'desysoping' if the reasons were removed? In my opinion, threads like this, this and this are interesting discussions to read and helps people understand, if they do not already through common sense, what exactly isn't acceptable by an administrator or anyone on this wiki as per RS:UTP and other standards set on the wiki. So far, nobody seems to provide an argument as to why the reasons should not remain other than describing it as a 'wall of shame'. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 19:46, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, because for myself I do not see that a single legit reason has been offered as to why it should remain.Degenret01 (talk) 23:18, December 16, 2016 (UTC)