Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion: Former administrators archive


Hello everyone. Following the discussion of Porter's extra rights, and that of recognizing former contributors, I decided (mostly for my own amusement) to create and archive of former administrators here on Nukapedia. With the archive now complete, I brought up the possibility of adding the archive to the administrators page in chat, and while there was some support, there was also some resistance to the idea, so I'm bringing it to a discussion to try and gauge community consensus.

I would like to discern what this is about, and what it is not. The idea of this page it to have a historical archive of former administrators for those who are interested enough to peruse it. It is about preserving information, and not for recognizing or singling out the contributions of any one individual, or to diminish the contributions of the community as a whole. It is merely about conserving the information and providing access to it.

The way I would propose adding this to the admin page is via a simple link to an archive page, much like Halo Nation does. The other way we could display it is by listing them all on the administrators page, like the WoWwiki. Agent c also suggested displaying it on the 'About' page, so that is another possibility. While it is currently limited to only admins, we could also add any user who held extra rights at one time, including chat moderators, patrollers, and rollbackers. This would be some extra work, but I could do it if the community would like it added.

Considering two other major wikis have pages like this, I don't see a reason to not include the information. For those who want to see the archive in it's current form, it can be found in my sandbox here. I'm travelling at the moment, so I won't be as active as normal but I will do my best to respond to any questions and misconceptions if and when they arise. Thanks everyone.

FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  21:39, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion[]

I, personally, have no problem with an archive of former extra rights holders. I believe it should be created as a sub-page of the admin page and could have a link to it on both the admin page (we could use the {{For}} template: "This page is for current extra rights holders, for past extra rights holders, please see.....) and the about page. And if we list any former extra rights holders, we should list them all. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:52, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything Gunny said. Hit the nail on the head for me. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 21:53, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

A solid idea. I can see it being a useful reference source in the future. --Skire (talk) 21:55, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be on the about page... "About" features are often used in software as a credit page (or link to em). Agent c (talk) 22:35, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I missed that bit... FW:ABOUT is indeed the appropriate place for such a page, not FW:ADMIN (or a sub-page thereof). --Skire (talk) 23:05, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth I fully support this idea. --RAMUser talk:Ramallah 22:40, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Would this mean everyone from Duck & Cover times, The Vault, etc would be in there? Or would this be strictly Nukapedia? Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 22:47, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need this. Our articles are our top priority, and I suppose community features are secondary. But individual users-- even those with special rights-- are really tertiary. How can we benefit from this idea, and is it really needed? The sandbox looks nice, but it's pretty useless. 69.l25 (talk) 22:59, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just focus on the time this wiki was formed and not worry about the Duck & Cover stuff. As far as if its needed I'm sure there are newer users who are curious about past administrators and its always good to archive history. --RAMUser talk:Ramallah 23:03, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people are curious about a lot of things, but what makes this special? 69.l25 (talk) 23:05, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Its a part of what has made this wiki what it is and a part of its history. Plus we really don't lose anything by having it and most of the work on it is already done so I really don't see any reason why not. We archive so much on this wiki from Talk Pages to Forum Post to Blog Post to in part preserve the history of this site. Why should this be any different. --RAMUser talk:Ramallah 23:12, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 69, we don't need this... I do however, understand the want for it. Archiving our past admins will appease those who believe that we should pay homage to the admins that helped shape our wiki. Kinda going off what Ram said, this is more of page to satisfy curiosity. I personally would like to know more about Nukapedia's past and would've liked a page like the one being proposed to have existed when I first joined the site. --MountHail (talk) 23:19, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a nice extra to have, but it's nothing more than that. People want it, and I'm sure it's going to get done, but the purpose of this site isn't to provide a history lesson (despite what my presidents blog may lead you to think). Though, since we have a "draft" it won't distract too much. My only other question is why we're listing only the founders, bureaucrats, and admins. Should we incorporate all former special-rights users? 69.l25 (talk) 23:49, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
The exchange between Kennynator and Garoux while he was logged out the other day comes to mind as a reason to list everyone. Great Mara (talk) 23:51, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should include everyone who has ever had special rights. --RAMUser talk:Ramallah 23:53, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. --MountHail (talk) 23:58, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep a record of who used to be an administrator so that their contributions aren't forgotten? Seems pointless, and that's coming from an ex-administrator. That being said it also doesn't cause any harm so there's no risk involved in creating such a page. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 00:03, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

@69, "Those who do not know their history are bond to repeat it." I would like to refer you to "The Split" and everyone involved. I for one did not know there was a split until half-way into my involvement into this wiki, but when I found out I researched who was involved but it took way to long to find the name and such. This would be a great reference and help us out greatly. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 00:05, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to learn much about the split if you just look at a page about past admins. Oh and here's my quote: "We learn from history that we do not learn from history." (Quotes are just pick-and-choosey). And I don't know if it'll help us, but I don't see all that much harm coming from it, which seems to be enough for some. 69.l25 (talk) 00:15, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
No I wouldn't learn much by looking at ot, but I would learn about said parties involved or why people lost rights or why they aren't here. Example: Itachou resigned due to real life issues. I wouldn't know unless I asked members who were here at that time. (not many left.) Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 00:29, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
A page like this, then, may lead only to more questions, which seems pointless if we're trying to help people learn about our history-- a goal some have alluded to. 69.l25 (talk) 00:46, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I support this, but when are we going to stop constantly talking about users who don't anything/much anymore? There are bigger fish to fry. Stars and Stripes (talk) 01:00, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The future should take precedence over the past, especially as we prepare for a possible new game... --Skire (talk) 01:39, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

For the record, if a list is ever to be created, I want my name omitted from it. I did not become an Administrator here for any sort of special significance, when the fact is that Nukapedia was created as an encyclopedia - a place to celebrate the information, and not the editor. I am prideful of the work I have put into this wiki and community. But nothing I did deserves any sort of historic importance. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:04, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I welcome any effort to celebrate our origins/history. Lets us and others know who we were and how much we've changed/improved. I for one am interested in its completion/implementation. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:37, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna try and respond to everyone's queries as best I can, and sorry if I miss anyone.

  • @Gunslinger - the way the archive currently sits it does include former administrators and bureaucrats from when The Vault was hosted on Duck & Cover, but only because those users are listed within our wiki's history, as the history of the wiki was transferred to Wikia in 2007 along with the contemporary content.
  • @69 - I agree with you that this isn't really needed, but the fact that I had enough curiosity to spend an afternoon compiling this shows that there is interest in viewing this information. I reiterate, I do not see this as recognition for anything, it is merely an archive of information, much like our forum archives. As a historian, I think the preservation of the records is an important part of a wiki - it's the reason there is an edit history for every page created here.
  • @Ramallah, Mounthail, & 69 - I have already begun progress on including all former ectra-rights holders in the archive, but I caution everyone that this list will be extensive. Ausir handed out rollback rights like they were candy back in the day, and they were not the same as our modern patrollers. It shouldn't take more than a few days to finish.
  • @Leon - I respect your position and would abide by your wishes should the archive be completed. However, I again reiterate that this isn't about recognizing you or anyone else. I see it as a historical archive of information, and it is the goal of an archive to be as complete as possible. People will look upon this list differently and draw their own conclusions, and this whole thing is not about making a per-conceived conclusion for everyone. Some may assume the former admins were a cut above the rest of the users, but that is their conclusion, and I am in no way stating this is the case or making any opinionated claim whatsoever.

To everyone else who is concerned about past vs. present, I want to state that I for one look to the past for sources of inspiration and guidance all the time - it is a part of my chosen vocation. Nevertheless, I consider this minor overall and in no way should diminish the present state of this wiki.

If anyone else has any queries, opinions, or comments, please state them in the coming days and eventually I will summarize this discussion and move it forward. Thanks again. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  21:42, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Do not worry: I am not attempting to bastardize your meaning or anything. But in my eyes, the act of having my position written in some context of historical importance means that I am being attached with some special significance that I do not feel I deserve, being merely one editor amongst the hundreds of thousands that have contributed to make Nukapedia what it is today. But I understand this is merely my own perspective on this particular matter, which is why I wish my name and position to be omitted instead of fighting against the proposal entirely. Thank you for respecting my position. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:46, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

^@Leon, spoken like a true gentleman and I know everyone here will agree and respect that. Anyways, if we do this I think it should be named a certain way and I had one question... If you add patrollers and all that, what would be of my old account? Would it be listed there as something such as....

Gunslinger470 - Resigned July 2013*

*Disabled Account, returned as The-Gunslinger, currently an active Patroller.

Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 04:54, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that we need your old account; it's a list of former special-rights users, not former accounts. As far as I'm concerned, you're still an active patroller. 69.l25 (talk) 04:58, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I did include it in my updated list, but I was going to ask people what they thought of that. You can see the full and complete archive (with Mods, Chat Mods, Patrollers and Rollbackers) here. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  05:12, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I saw that. Let the community decide, helps the decision. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 05:14, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward[]

It seems from this discussion a few issues were raised and hopefully addressed. For those who haven't reviewed the archive yet, I have added all former extra-rights holders (down to rollbackers) and the updated archive can be found here.

There also arose 3 possibilities of what to do with the archive and where it should go:

  • Agent c suggested that the archive be linked on the About page.
  • The Gunny suggested we utilize the {{for}} template at the top of the administrators page.
  • Several users questioned the legitimacy of such a page and were against it's implementation/their own inclusion.

If anyone has any other suggestions, please state them below so they may be considered. If no other suggestions come forward, we can move this forward to a small vote in a few days.

New question[]

Another issue that has been raised is the inclusion of people who do not want their names listed in the archive. Leon has stated that he wishes his name to be removed should the archive be moved to the mainspace. Discussions with other users in chat revealed that they do not consider this to be appropriate, as an archive must be as complete as our knowledge allows. In granting Leon's request, we would also have to grant the requests of any other users who wish to be removed (as a precedent has then been set), weakening the usefulness of the archive. So, should we remove the names of users from the archive at their request? Any opinions on this are more than welcome. Thanks again for everyone's time. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  17:33, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

The list would be purely for historical purposes, correct? If this is the case, it would be inappropriate to omit any former administrator; the goal would be to document everyone who formerly held special-rights. I still don't like the idea, but if we're going to do this, we should at least be as accurate as possible. 69.l25 (talk) 20:21, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

( What a fuss about nothing. Using the for template or a place on the About page is too much honor. Just a link below the Inactive users is enough. Like so:

Former extra-rights holders[]

If Leon doesn't want his name on it, we scratch his. The rest stays if we don't hear objections. No need to ask them, really. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 17:51, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a link; we don't have one for any "inactive" users, so I don't see a good reason to have one for "former" users. 69.l25 (talk) 20:23, February 28, 2014 (UTC)
So out of curiosity where are we at on this?--Kingclyde (talk) 22:07, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

As of now are there any objections to the making of this page? Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 20:38, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

No objections from my end. Although, I still would really prefer having my name and position struck from any such list. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:31, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

It's a history page of the whole wiki, I really don't think it's a good idea to pick and choose who can be on it. History is history and whether you like it or not you were and still are an important factor here. Your name and position should stay.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:37, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

I am for this but my only concern with this is the position on my old account. I want the community to decide what we should list it as. Right now it is listed as...

  • Gunslinger470 - Resigned July 2013

The question I am asking is should we leave that like it is and just put something such as "*Now Registered as The-Gunslinger, now holds the Moderator position.

OR

Should we strike the whole thing from the record as I am here now and active. I want the community to decide rather than myself or a single user. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 21:49, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Accounts belong to the person, so only your current account should be mentioned Agent c (talk) 21:53, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Notes[]

Just an update, this archive is now located here. -kdarrow Pickman heart take her for a spin! 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement